Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60087/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Stewart
Appellant
Treasure Bay Casino
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60087

Summary Calendar

EDWARD STEWART, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

TREASURE BAY CASINO, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:12-CV-197

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff–Appellant Edward Stewart appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment for Defendant–Appellee Treasure Bay Casino. 

Stewart argues that the district court erred by finding he was unable to show 

that Treasure Bay’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

2

termination was pretext for unlawful racial discrimination. For the following 

reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Edward Stewart was hired by Treasure Bay Casino to serve as a Security 

Officer on July 4, 2008. He was promoted to the position of Security Lead 

Officer on August 11, 2008. Treasure Bay’s Security Director, Kenneth Key, 

was responsible for Stewart’s promotion. Treasure Bay’s Human Resources 

Director, Joe Thornton, also played a role in the promotion. For the first two 

years of his employment, Stewart received positive performance evaluations.

However, beginning in February 2010, Stewart was subject to a number 

of disciplinary actions. On approximately February 17, 2010, Stewart received 

an Action Notice for “direct[ing] . . . subordinates to ignore established policy 

by telling them not to give . . . requesting employees” escorts to Treasure Bay’s 

parking lot. This Action Notice was classified as a “Counseling Notice,” which 

is the first step of Treasure Bay’s progressive discipline process.1 On May 12, 

2010, Stewart received a second Action Notice for instructing the security 

officers under his supervision “not to administer [an] ID check” requested by 

Treasure Bay’s surveillance department. This Action Notice was classified as 

a “Written Warning,” which is the second step of Treasure Bay’s progressive 

discipline process. Additionally, a written letter from Key was placed in 

Stewart’s personnel file, with the subject line “Disorderly Conduct.” Key’s

letter explained that on December 28, 2010, Stewart entered the security 

supervisor’s office in an intoxicated state. The letter also noted that on 

December 29, 2010, Stewart was asked to leave the Treasure Bay premises 

 

1 Treasure Bay’s Employee Handbook makes clear that employee discipline can begin 

at any step of the progressive discipline process. It further states that “Treasure Bay is not 

bound to progressive discipline in all cases.” 

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

3

because he was intoxicated. The letter prohibited Stewart from being present 

at Treasure Bay after working hours. 

On December 31, 2010, Stewart was issued another Action Notice,

classified as a “Final Warning,” which is the third step of Treasure Bay’s 

progressive discipline process. The Action Notice explained that there had 

been “multiple instances of Security Lead Edward Stewart conducting himself 

in an unprofessional manner.” It noted that “[a]ny further violations of 

[Treasure Bay’s] procedures could lead to further corrective actions including 

. . . separation from the company.” Underlying this Action Notice were 

multiple reports of Stewart’s misconduct. For example, on approximately 

December 27, 2010, Brian Salas, a security officer who reported to Stewart, 

sent a letter to Key expressing his “grave concerns . . . for the unfair and 

inconsistent treatment,” that Stewart had subjected him to. Salas reported 

that Stewart repeatedly mispronounced his last name and when asked to 

pronounce it correctly, Stewart said “this is America and I’ll say your name 

[however] I want.” Key also received an email from April Pritt, another 

security officer under Stewart’s supervision, who complained that Stewart 

“intentionally goes out of his way to be rude,” and that she “did nothing to 

deserve [this treatment] except decline his offer to go on a date.” Pritt also 

noted that Stewart “treats Brian Salas . . . terribly.” Pritt concluded by 

commenting that Stewart is “extremely rude, arrogant, and not a pleasure to 

work for at all,” and that he “has made us . . . hate coming to work.” A few 

months later, Key received additional complaints about Stewart from both 

Salas and Pritt. Finally, on March 30, 2011, Key received a letter from 

Treasure Bay employee David Sloan, which stated that Sloan felt that Stewart 

“is very unprofessional and spends more time flexing his arms than worrying 

about protecting this [c]asino.” Sloan reported that Stewart treated Salas 

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

4

poorly and that Stewart had previously stated that he thought he could do a 

better job as security director.

As a result of these complaints, Key decided to transfer Stewart to a 

different shift, which would have allowed Stewart to benefit from the 

supervision of a different security supervisor. Key intended for the shift 

change to take effect at the beginning of May 2011. However, before the shift 

change could take place, Key received reports of another altercation between 

Stewart and Salas. Pritt reported that on April 19, 2011, Salas asked Stewart 

to pronounce his name correctly during a security briefing. Pritt explained 

that after Salas made this request, Stewart told Salas “to ‘get out and go talk 

to the wall.’” According to Pritt, Stewart then “slammed the door in [Salas’] 

face.” Pritt’s characterization of the incident was corroborated by Elizabeth 

Bieller and Scottie Loree, who both served as Treasure Bay security officers.

After discussing Stewart’s behavior with Thornton and Treasure Bay 

Chief Operating Officer Susan Varnes, Thornton determined that Stewart’s 

conduct had violated Treasure Bay’s Crewmember Handbook. He further 

concluded that Stewart should be terminated because he had repeatedly 

engaged in unprofessional conduct. Stewart was terminated on April 22, 2011. 

Varnes made the ultimate termination decision.

On June 20, 2012, Stewart filed a pro se complaint in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and alleged that he had 

been “retaliated and discriminated against because of [his] race.” He 

purported to bring claims against “Thornton (Treasure Bay).” The district 

court granted Thornton’s motion to dismiss; however, it construed Stewart’s 

complaint to also allege claims against Treasure Bay. Stewart subsequently 

withdrew his retaliation claim against Treasure Bay. On January 1, 2015, the 

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

5

district granted Treasure Bay’s motion for summary judgment on Stewart’s 

remaining Title VII discrimination claim. Stewart’s timely appeal followed.2 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standard on appeal as that applied below.” Rogers v. 

Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2014). Summary 

judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists ‘if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party.’” Rogers, 755 F.3d at 350 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). We construe “all facts and inferences in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 

260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, a 

summary judgment motion may not be defeated by “conclusory allegations, 

unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” Hathaway v. 

Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

It is “unlawful for an employer to fire an employee because of the 

employee’s race.” Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 

2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1)). This court applies “the modified 

McDonnell Douglas approach in racial discrimination cases under Title VII.” 

Id. (citing Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2004); 

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). In order to survive 

 

2 Stewart only challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his Title 

VII discrimination claim against Treasure Bay. He does not challenge the district court’s 

decision to grant Thornton’s motion to dismiss or the district court’s finding that he had 

withdrawn his retaliation claim against Treasure Bay.

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

6

summary judgment under that approach, the employee “must first present 

evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination.” Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid 

Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 317 (5th Cir. 2004). To establish a prima facie case,

Stewart must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he 

was qualified to be a lead security officer; (3) that he was fired; and (4) that he 

was replaced by someone outside of his protected class. Vaughn, 665 F.3d at 

636. If a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to Treasure Bay to 

articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing Stewart. Id.; see 

also McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Once Treasure Bay presents “a 

legitimate rationale for its employment action, the inference of discrimination 

disappears and the plaintiff must present evidence that the employer’s 

proffered reason was mere pretext for racial discrimination.” Davis, 383 F.3d 

at 317. In order to establish pretext, Stewart must show that Treasure Bay’s 

proffered reason for his termination “is false or unworthy of credence.” 

Vaughn, 665 F.3d at 637 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the district court, assuming that Stewart was able to establish a 

prima facie case, determined that Stewart failed to establish a genuine issue 

of material fact that Treasure Bay’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for 

his termination was pretextual. We agree. The record establishes that 

Treasure Bay received numerous complaints, from a number of different 

Treasure Bay employees, about Stewart’s poor job performance. The record 

also reflects that Treasure Bay relied on these complaints and Stewart’s 

previous Action Notices to determine that he had engaged in unprofessional 

conduct. Clearly, Treasure Bay had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason 

for Stewart’s termination.

Stewart argues that Treasure Bay’s proffered explanation was pretext 

for unlawful race discrimination. However, nothing in the record suggests 

Treasure Bay’s explanation was prextual, such as evidence that he was subject 

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

7

to disparate treatment, Vaughn, 665 F.3d at 637, or evidence that Treasure 

Bay’s explanation was not “the real reason” for Stewart’s termination, id. 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Importantly, Stewart does not challenge 

the record evidence which supports Treasure Bay’s position that he was subject 

to numerous reports of misconduct. Stewart contends that Treasure Bay’s 

failure to interview him and other African-American employees during its 

investigation is evidence of pretext. However, Stewart has produced no 

evidence that Treasure Bay’s failure to interview other African Americans was 

anything but coincidental. Furthermore, we have never required an 

employer’s investigation to be perfect; it must only be non-discriminatory. See 

Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA Inc., 413 F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Moreover, the record shows that Treasure Bay repeatedly discussed with 

Stewart the complaints about his conduct throughout the duration of his 

employment, albeit not immediately before he was terminated. Because 

Stewart has provided no evidence other than his own conclusory statements 

that Treasure Bay’s reason for his termination was pretextual, the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment for Treasure Bay was proper. See Jackson 

v. Cal-W. Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[An employee’s] 

assertion of innocence alone does not create a factual issue as to the falsity of 

[the employer’s] proffered reason for terminating him.”).

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 15-60087

8

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60087 Document: 00513133532 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/29/2015