Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03094/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Dry Cleaners
Appellee
Mustapha Tusa
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 C· 1992 

MUSTAPHA TUSA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STANLEY DRY CLEANERS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

-POB~P.rri L "R·u-· t:"·C~"7"i-- _ ,:., __ .,_ .. ---- • ,,l.;,i ·.- ----

CJa.,..!- ---· .. 

) No. 92-3094 

) (D.C. No. 91-V-2116) 

) (D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Mustapha Tusa appeals from an order of the district 

court granting summary judgment for defendant Stanley Dry 

Cleaners, Inc. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3094 Document: 010110322210 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 1
Tusa commenced this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act, 42 u.s.c. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. Tusa, a black man, 

alleged he was fired by defendant because of his race after he 

refused to train a new manager. The district court appointed 

counsel who was allowed to withdraw upon Tusa's motion. The 

district court denied Tusa's motion for appointment of new 

counsel, and Tusa was directed to proceed prose. 

Defendant moved for summary judgment stating that Tusa had 

been fired because of insubordination1 not because of race. The 

district court granted summary judgment holding that because Tusa 

had not filed a response, the motion was deemed uncontested 

pursuant to D. Kan. R. 206(g)(upon failure to file timely 

response, motion will be considered and decided as uncontested and 

ordinarily will be granted without further notice). 

On appeal, Tusa argues, and defendant concedes, that he did 

respond to the motion. However, Tusa filed his response only with 

defendant and not with the district court. Tusa included a copy 

of his response and the "Referee's Decision" issued by the Kansas 

Department of Human Resources with his brief on appeal. 

In reviewing a district court's order granting summary 

judgment, we generally "consider only those papers before the 

court at the time of its decision." Dodd Ins. Servs., Inc. v. 

Royal Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 1152, 1156 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991). We have 

1 Insubordination can be a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason 

for discharge. See Brown v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 746 F.2d 1407, 

1411 (10th Cir. 1984). 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3094 Document: 010110322210 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 2
reviewed the documents submitted by Tusa only to determine whether 

he presented any "genuine issue as to any material fact," which 

would preclude a grant of summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c). We conclude that Tusa has not presented such an issue. 

This case was framed as a discriminatory discharge action. 

Construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972), Tusa's pro se complaint could be read as alleging a 

failure to promote cause of action. Thus construed, Tusa has 

presented no facts showing that the woman employed as an assistant 

manager was less qualified than he. The fact that she quit the 

job after two days does not prove she was not qualified for that 

position. 

Defendant has moved for attorney's fees should we determine 

that this appeal is frivolous. If we were to treat this case 

strictly as a discharge case, it would appear frivolous. Viewed 

as a failure to promote case, while Tusa has not presented enough 

factual evidence to avoid summary judgment, the claim is not so 

frivolous as to warrant the award of attorney's fees. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. Defendant's motion for attorney's 

fees is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3094 Document: 010110322210 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 3