Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20410 Su m m ar y Cal endar

HEL EN J EF F ER S ON; DA P HNE G RA NVI L L E; T HE E S T AT E OF A M AND A H ERN AN DE Z, M a nu e lAc e v e d o a s Nex t Fr i e nd ; AGN ES ANYALEBE DH I L; J OSI E J ACO BS; PHI LLI P M I N AM BI SS ERI L; SYL VI A POTI ER; RALPH D AV IS ; F AYB R U M F IE L D ; B E R N A D E T T E E T O A M A , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. CHR I S T US S T

. J OS EP H HOS P I T AL ; HOS P I T AL P AR T NER S OF A M E R IC A , IN C ; C H R IS T U S H E A L T H G U L F C O A S T , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 1535

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * H el en Jef

f erson, D ap h n e G ran v il l e, t h e E st ate of A m an da H erna n dez, Agne s Anya l e be dhi l , J o s i e J ac o bs , Phi l l i p M i nam bi s s e r i l , Sy l vi a Pot i e r , Ral ph United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

An eleventh plaintiff, Ab el Ab ad, did not appear in the district co urt bel ow or defen d 1 his clai ms in respon se to appelle es’ motionfor summaryj udgment. Accordingly , all of A bad’ s cl aim s of erro r h av e b ee nwaived

. Ho rton v. BankOne, N .A

. , 3 8 7F .3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 4). 2 D av i s , FayB r um f

i e l d, and B e r nad e t t e E t o am a a ppe alt he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s g r ant 1
o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t on th e ir r a c e , a g e , n a tio n a l o r ig in , re ta lia tio n , a n d h o s tile
w or k envi r onm ent c l ai m s agai nstappel l ee s, C hri st us St

. Jo se ph H os pi t al (“C h r i s t u s ”), H o s p ita l P a r tn e r s o f A m e r ic a (“H P A ”), a n d C h r is tu s H e a lth G u lf Coas t
. Appe l l ant s a l l e ge num e r o us g r o unds f o r r e ve r s alb ased on bo t h t he
c i r c u m s ta n c e s a n d s u b s ta n c e o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n . F in d in gn o m e r it i n t h e s e c l a i m e d e r r o r s , we AF FI RM

.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND Th e fac t s of t hi s c as e, vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o a ppel l ant s as t h e no n- m o vi ng pa r t y, a r e a s f o l l o w s . Appe l l ant s a r e b e hav i o r alm e di c i ne
n u rses , psychiat ri c t echn i ci an s, an d therap i st s f orm erl y em pl oyed by C h ri st u s. In sum m ary, t h ey vari ou sl y accuse C h ri st u s, an d i t s su cces sor H P A , of race, age, and na t i o nalo r i gi n di s c r i m i nat i o n. The e ve nt s g i vi ng r i s e t o t hi s s u i t b e ga n i n l at e 2 00 5 w he n Chr i s t us i n f orm ed i t s enti re st af

f of beh avior alm edi ci n e nu rses , psychiat ri c t echn i ci an s, an d t h erapi st s t h at t h ey w ou l d be requ i red t o parti ci pa t e i n an i n t ernet- based
researc h survey ( “ t h e Sm i l ex S u rvey”) condu ct ed by a t h i rd pa rt y. Th e Sm i l ex S u rv e y consi st ed of a pre- t est , vi gn et t es depi ct i n g f requ en t l y- observed b eh a viora li ssu es i n p sy ch i a tri c p a ti en ts, a n d a p ost-t est. D u ri n g t h e p ost-t est, p a rti ci p a n ts w h o a n sw ere d qu estio n s i n corre ctl y w ere pr ov i d ed i m m ed i a te feedb ack exp la in in g w h y t h ei r answ er w as i n corr ectan d w h y an ot h er answ er
w as t h e b et t er choic e. T h e creatorof t h e Sm i l ex S u rvey, C ol i n M cK ay, t est i f i ed i n hi s depos i t i on thatthe t r ai ni ng pr ogr am t ypi c al l y r equi r ed t hi r t y t o f or t y- f i ve Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

Appell ant s argue that McKaytestified the survey coul d be complet ed in less th an ten 2 minutes. Actu ally, McKay also testifi ed that such a result was highlyu nlikely , atle ast fo r a first-timetest-taker.

Hernandezwas the only appellant whowas not r equired to r etest. 3 3 m i n u t es t o com p lete

. T h e open i n g scr een of t h e survey al so i n f orm ed 2 pa rt i ci pa n t s t h at c om pl et i on w ou l d take thi rt y t o f ort y- f i ve m i n u t es. In earl y 200 6 , M cK ay beg an revi ew i n g t h e com pl et i on t i m es and sc ores l ogg ed bya l lof

t he C hri st us e m pl oye es . I n t he pr oc es s, he di sc ove r ed s eve r al i nst ance s of

em pl oye es c om pl et i ng w hatw as put ati vel y a t hi r t y- t o- f or t y- f i ve
m i n u t e survey i n l ess t h an f ou r m i n u t es and st i l lachi evi n g v e ry h i gh sc ores. M cK ay n o t i f

i ed S u san W i l l m an n , t h e t h en - A dm i n i st rat i ve D i rect or f or Beha vi o r alM e di c i ne , o f t he i r r e gul ar i t i e s i n t he t e s t i ng da t a. Bas e d o n t he i nf o r m at i o n r e c e i ve d f r o m M c K ay , W i l l m ann be ga n t o s us pe c t t hatt he
e m p lo y e e s w ith th e fa s te s t c o m p le tio n tim e s h a d ch e a te d o n th e s u r v e y . C on sequ en t l y, W i l l m an n , i n consult ati on w i t h seve ra lm em bers of Chri s t us ’ s s e ni o r s t af f, de c i de d t o r e qui r e a l li ndi vi dua l s w ho c om pl et ed t he survey i n l ess t h an fi f t een m i n u t es to ret ak e t h e survey w i t h a proct or. U n der th e re te s tin gp o lic y , e m p lo y e e s w e r e re q u ir e d to s c o r e w ith in fiv e p o in ts o f th e ir ori gi n al sc ore and f

i n i sh w i t h i n t h ree m i n u t es of t h ei r ori gi n al t i m e. E m pl oyees
w ere asked to c om pl et e t h e exact sam e survey w i t h t h e exact sam e qu est i on s. Th e o nl y di f

fer enc es be t w ee n t he o r i gi nals u rv ey and t he r et es t w er e t hat
e m pl o yees w e r e m o ni t o r e d b y a pr o c t o r a nd t he pr e - t e s t w as o m i t t e d, t hus shorteni n g t h e exerci se. A f t er r evi ew i n g t h e data, W i l l m an n a n d t h e seni or s t af f noti f i ed n i n e of t h e app el l an ts , a llof w h o m su b se q u e n tlyre sig n e d or w e re ter m in a te d , th a t t h ey 3
w ou l d be requ i red t o ret ak e t h e survey. Fou r ot h er i n di vi du al s w h o are not pa r t i e s t o t hi s a ppe alw e r e a l s o r e qui r e d t o r e t ak e t he s ur ve y: Li z Ande r s o n, Bas s e y Et i m , W al t e r F o s t o n, a nd Kei t h M o f f i t t
. Bas s e y Et i m r e f

us e d t o r e t ak e Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

4 t h e survey. Th e rec ord i s s i l en t a s to w h et h er W al t er Foston w as t erm i n ated
w h en h e fail ed to d u p lic a te or i m p rov e h i s score . K eit h M off i tt, the on e w h i te
e m p lo y e e re q u ir e d to re ta k e th e s u r v e y , fi n i s h e d th e p r o c to r e d s u r v e y w ith in th r e e m in u te s a n d fiv e p o in ts o f h is o r ig in a l s c o r e a s re q u ir e d

. L iz A n d e r s o n , a bl ack em pl oyee, app ears t o h ave f i n i shed ou t si de t h e a pp ropri ate ti m e w i n dow i n he rr e t e s t , b ut he r s c o r e i m pr o ve d bysi x po i nt s , and s he w as no t t e r m i nat e d. A s set ou t i n the f

oll ow i n g ta b l e, h ow e v e r , n o n e o f th e a p p ell a n ts w ere ab l e to
m eet t h e ret est i n g st an da rd or i m prove thei r perf orm an ce: A p p e lla n t F ir s t S c o r e /T im e S e c o n d S c o r e /T im e A gn es A n yalebedh i l 86 /6. 2 m i n u t es 65 /24. 4 m i n u t es F aye B rum f

i el d 92 /5. 3 m i n u t es

90 /9. 2 m i n u t es 56 /73 m i n u t es

R al ph D avis 86 /6. 1 m i n u t es 73 /43. 4 m i n u t es B erna dett e E t oam a 77 /8. 2 m i n u t es 79 /2. 9 m i n u t es 64 /25 m i n u t es

D ap h n e G ran vi l l e 82 /12. 9 m i n u t es 74 /15. 4 m i n u t es Josi e Jacobs 87 /4. 9 m i n u t es 69 /68. 7 m i n u t es H el en Jef

ferson 86 /4. 0 m i n u t es 72 /74. 2 m i n u t es P h i l i p M i n am bi sser i l 75 /5. 0 m i n u t es 71 /20. 1 m i n u t es S yl vi a P ot i er 78 /13. 8 m i n u t es 58 /43. 4 m i n u t es A f t er the ret est i n g w as com pl et ed, W i l l m an m et i n di vi du al l y w i t h each of t h e a p p e l l a n t s . An y a l e b e d h i l , Br u m f i e l d , Da v i s , J a c o b s , M i n a m b i s s e r i l , a nd P ot i er adm i t t ed to W i l l m an n t h at t h ey received assi st anc e na vi ga t i ng t he survey
oransw erin g ques t i ons duri ng t hei r f i r stat t em pt
. W i l l m ann di sc ove r ed t hat H er nandez, w ho w as notr equi r ed t o r et es t be c a us e herf i r stc om pl et i on t i m e w as suff i ci en t , w as t h e i n di vi du alw h o ha d assi st ed allof the pl ai n t i f

fs exceptJacobs. C h ri st u s s u bsequ en t l y f i red A n yalebed h il , D avis , E t oam a, G ran vi l l e, H erna n dez, Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

5 Je f fe r s o n, a nd M i nam bi s s e r i lb e t w e e n M ar c h 2 0 and Apr i l7 , 2 00 6, f o r v i o l at i ng C h ri st u s’ s C ode of

C on du ct
. B rum f

i el d, J acobs, a n d P ot i er vol u n t ari l y resi gn ed af t err et aki ng t he s urve y. A ppel l ant s i ndi vid u al l y f i l ed c harge s of

di sc r i m i nat i on w i t h t he E qual E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity C o m m is s io n (“E E O C ”) a lle g in ga v a r ie ty o f c la im s . T h e E E O C i ssued ri gh t

- t o- sue l et t ers t o al lof t h e app el l an t s. A pp el l an t s f i l ed sui t al l egi n g raci al di scr i m i n ati on u n der t h e T exas C i vi lan d H u m an R i gh t s A ct ( “ TC H RA ” ) i n s t at e c o ur t
. The ap pe l l ant s am e nde d t he i r pet i t i o n t w i c e t o a dd addi t i onaldef

endant s and i n cl u d e cl ai m s und er42 U

. S. C

. §§ 1981 and 1983 b efore a p p ell ee s rem ov ed the cas e to fede ra lcou rt. T h ere a ft er, a p p ell a n ts
am e nde d t he i r c o m pl ai nt ye t ag ai n – t hi s t i m e t o i nc l ude c l ai m s o f r e t al i at i o n, nat i onalor i gi n di sc r i m i nat i on, and defam at i on und er Ti t l e VII and t he A ge Di s c r i m i na t i o n i n Em p l o y m e ntAc t ( “AD EA” ) a s we l la s t o d r o p t he i r § 1 983
c la im s . Th e ap p el l ee s m ove d f ors um m ar y j udgm enton Febr uary 23, 2009. A pp el l an t s r espon ded i n pi ecem eal fash i on w i t h tw o d iff erent f i l i n gs l abeled “R e s p o n s e to M o tio n fo r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t” o n M a r c h 1 3 a n d M a r c h 1 6 a s w e ll
a s mo r e t h a n 6 0 0 p a g e s o f e x h i b i t s . Ap p e l l e e s f i l e d t h e i r r e p l y o n M a r c h 3 1
. O n A pri l20 a nd w i t hout l eave of cour t , appel l ant s f

i l ed a 41- page sur - r epl y and an addi t i onal80 pag es of exhi bi t s. O n M ay 18, 2009, t he di st r i c t c our t r ul ed t hat ap pe l l ant s ’s ur - r e pl y and t h e in c l ude d e xhibi t s w e r e no t pr o pe r l y be f o r e t he
c o ur t a nd g r ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. Appe l l ant s t i m e l y ap pe al e d. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e re v ie w a g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . N

. A m . S peci alty I

n s. C o. v. R oyal S u rpl u s Lines Ins. Co. , 541 F

. 3d 552 , 555 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Su m m ary j u dg m en t i s proper “ i f t h e pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery an d di scl osure m ater i al s on f i l e, and any af

f i davi t s sho w t hat t her e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue as t o a ny m at er i al fa c t a n d tha t t h e m ov a n t i s en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED
. R. Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

Wedo not address the appella nts’ clai ms of e rror regardingth e affidavits of Keith 4 Moffitt and Kathy Henni gan. In their opening brief, appellants all ege in t he ir“S t at ement RegardingOralArgu ment” and “ S t at em en to f th e I ssues” thatth e di strict court erred in exclu ding

bo th affidavits. Ye t appell ant s provide no argument or auth oritysuppo rtin g their clai m inth e b odyof their b rief. In stead, they repeatedly assert in concluso ry fashion that th e di strictcourterr edan d citeto th e po rtio no f th e re co rdc ontainin gth e aff id avit s. A

p artymu st “provide[]

. . . argument or authority in support of [their] position. . . . [F]ailure to provide any le ga l orfactual analysis of an issue on appeal waive s that i ssue.” Do u g las W

. ex rel. J

ason D. W. v. Ho uston Indep . Sch. Di st. , 15 8 F .3d 2 05, 210n .4 (5 th Cir. 1 998). Appell ant s havethus 6 C IV
. P

. 56(c )

. Agen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact exi st s w h en t h e evi den ce i s s u ch th a t a re a s o n a b le ju r y co u ld re tu r n a v e r d ic t fo r th e n o n -m o v a n t. A nder s on v. L i berty L obby, I

n c. , 477 U

. S

. 242 , 248

- 49 (1 9 8 6 ). W h e n revi ew i n g a gran t of
s um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he c o ur t s ho ul d vi e w a l lfac t s a nd e vi de nc e i n t he l i ght
m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n -m o v in gp a r ty
. Un i t ed Fi re & C as. Co. v. H i xson B ros. , 45 3 F. 3d 2 83 , 2 85 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)

. H o w e ve r , t o a voi d sum m ar y j udg m e nt , t he
non- m ovantw ho be ar s t he bur den of pr oo f at t r i al m ust go beyo nd t he pl eadi ngs a n d co m e fo r w a r d w ith s p e c ific fa c ts in d ic a tin ga g e n u in e is s u e fo r tr ia l. P i azza’ s S eaf ood W orl d , L L C v . O d om , 4 4 8 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e
m ay“ af f i r m a g r antof s um m ar y j udg m e nto n a ny gr o unds s upp o r t e d b y t he
reco rd a n d p rese n ted to th e [distri ct] cou rt. ” Hernan d ez v. V el asqu ez , 522 F. 3d 5 5 6 , 5 6 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e re vi e w t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o ns o f t he ad m i s s i bi l i t y or c o m pe t e nc y o f

s um m ar y j udg m e nte vi de nc e o nl y f o r a bus e of

di s c r e t i o n. Mc I nt os h v. Part r i dge , 540 F. 3d 315, 320, 322 (5th C i r . 2008) ( r evi ew i ng a di st ri ctcourt ’ s de cision t o consi der contest ed i t em s as c om petent s u m m ary ju d g m e n t ev id e n ce for a b u se of d iscr e tion ). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A pp el l an t s r ai se w h at c an be redu ced, in the agg regate, to tw o errors on ap pea l: 1 ) w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on w h en i t sust ai n ed ap pel l ees’obj ect i on s t o ap pel l an t s’ sur- repl y an d su r- repl y exh i bi t s and ref u sed t o st ri k e t h e E E O C ’ s det erm i n ati on l et t er ; an d 2) w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt 4 Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

waivedanye rrora s to th e di strictc ourt ’se xclu si ono f th e Mo ff itt a n d He n niga naff

id avit s. Acc or din gly , th eyarenotb ef or e u s inthisapp eal inanyf or m. The district co urt expresslyh eld that: “Altho ugh t he C ourtdeclin es tostrike th e 5 EE OC de termin atio n lette r, itsimil arlydeclin es to consi der it in ruling onth e pe ndin g motion for su mmary ju dgment.” Jeffers on v. Ch rist us St . Jo seph Hosp. , No. 4:08 -CV -153 5, slip o p. at 1 6n .1 0( S. D. T ex . May1 8 , 2 0 0 9).

Ap p e ll a nt s m ake n o ar gu m e nt s i n th e ir a p p e ll at e b ri e f i n g p e rt ai ni n g t o th eir 6 defamationcl aims. Acco rdin gly, anycl aim of e rror as toth ese c la im s h as b eenwaived. Jus tissOil C

o. v. Kerr-McGee Ref. C orp. , 7 5F .3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 6). 7 erred i n gran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en t on allof t h e ap p e ll a n ts’di scr i m i n ati on c l ai m s . W e a ddr e s s e ac h c l ai m e d e r r o r i n t ur n. A

. Cl ai m s of

E r r or s as t o t he D i s t r i c tCour t ’ s E vi dent i ary R ul i ngs Appe l l ant s c o m pl ai n t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d i n i t s de c i s i o n t o e xc l ude t h ei r s u r- repl y an d su r- repl y exh i bi t s. A pp el l an t s al so cl ai m t h e di st ri ctcourt erred w h en itd i sregarded, b u t d ecl i n ed t o st ri ke, an E E O C deter m i n ati on l et t er prof fered by the ap pel l ees. W e concl u de t h at t h e di st ri ct court’ s deci si on t o di sregard ap pel l an t s’surrep l y a n d su r-rep l y e xh i b i ts on t h e b a sis of ap p ell a n ts’fa i l u re to com p l y w i th th a t co u r t’s p u b lis h e d p r o c e d u r e s w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . F ED
. R. C IV
. P

. 83(b)

. Si m i l arl y, w e f i n d n o abu se of

di scr et i on i n t h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s deci si on t o di sr egar d r at her t han st r i ke t he E E O C det er m i nat i on l et t erdat ed O c t obe r 25, 2007. 5 B. The D i s t r i c tCour t ’ s G r antof

Sum m ar

y Judg m e nt A p p ell a n ts all eg e in th eir com p l a i n t t h a t t h ey w ere allsu b j ected to i n t en t i on aldi scr i m i n ati on an d ret al i ati on on the basi s of t h ei r r espect i ve races, a g e s , a n d n a tio n a l o r ig in s . A p p e lla n ts a ls o c o n t e n d o n a p p e a l th a t t h e ir
com pl ai n t al l eged cl ai m s of di sparate i m pa ctdi scr i m i n ati o n a n d h ost i l e w ork
en vi ronm en t
. Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m e n t a s t o al lof 6
a p p ell a n ts’cl a i m s on the gro u n d s th a t ap p ell a n ts: 1) fa i l ed to pro p erly ex h a u st; 2) fai l e d t o pl e ad ce r t ai n cl ai m s pr i o r t o f i l i ng t he s ur - r e pl y; 3 ) fai l e d t o m ak e o ut Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

Weal so pre termit the que s t io n of whe therHPA con stitut ed an “employer” or c oul d 7 oth erwi seb e subj ecte d tosucc es so r li ab ilityu n der th e a pp licab lest atute s.

Inaddressin g their race and retaliationcl aims, appell ant s m ixt heir di scussionof 8 thei r TitleVIIand TCHRA raceand ret aliat ion clai ms w ith thei r dis cus sio n of thei r 42 U.S .C. § 1 981 race and retaliationcl aims. Our holdingas to exh austion, like that of the district c ourt , only appli es toth ose clai ms subj ect to an exhau stionrequir ementan d doe s no t re ach a pp ellants ’ v ariou s § 1 9 8 1 c laim s. 8 a pri m a faci e case ; a n d /or 4 ) fai l ed to dem on st rat e pret ext i n t h e app el l ees’ pro f fer ed r eas ons f

ort aki ng adver se em p l oym entac t i ons . W e c onc l ude t hat
a p p e l l a n t s e i t h e r fa i l e d t o e x h a u s t , fa i l e d t o p l e a d , o r fa i l e d t o ma k e o u t a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e a s to a ll o f t h e ir c la im s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a ff ir m th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s
w el l

- reasoned opi n i on w i t h ou t reachi n g ap pel l ees’prof fered j u st i f

i cat i on or ap pel l an t s’att em pts t o show pret ext or m i xed m ot i ves. 7 1
. A p p e l l a n t s ’D i s c r i mi n a t i o n C l a i ms a. A dm i n i st rat i ve E xh au st i on A s t h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l y n ot ed, a pl ai n t i f f m u stf i rste xh au sthi s or h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s f o r c l a i m s b r o u g h t un d e r t h e ADEA, t h e T CHRA,
a n d T i tl e V II before f i l i n g su i t. F

ost er v. Nat’

l B an k of B ossier C ity , 857 F. 2d 8 1 0 5 8 , 1 0 6 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (A D E A ); Jo ne s v . G r i nne l lCor p. , 235 F. 3d 972, 975 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (T C H R A ); McC l ain v. L u f ki n I n d u s. , 5 19 F

. 3d 2 64, 2 73 (5t h C i r. 2008) ( Ti t l e VII )

. To pr ope r l y ex h aust , a pr i vat e e m pl oye e m ustf i l e a n a d m in is tr a tiv e ch a r g e w ith th e E E O C

. Pa ch ec o v. Min eta , 4 4 8 F .3 d 7 8 3 , 7 8 8 n .6 ( 2 0 0 6 )

. I n a s s e s s i n gwh e t h e r a c h a r g e p r o p e r l y e x h a u s t s a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m, we

“ c ons t r ue[] an E E O C c om pl ai nt br oadl y, ” but w e w i l lonl y f i nd a c l ai m w as exh au st ed i f

i t c o ul d ha ve b e e n “ r e as o nab l y . . . e xp e c t e d t o g r o w o uto f t he ch a rg e of discri m i n a ti on . ” McC la in , 5 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 7 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). A pp el l an t s un i f

orm l y al l ege race, age, an d n ati on alori gi n di scr i m i n ati on a s w e ll a s re ta lia tio n i n t h e T h ir d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t. N o n e th e le s s , th e ir i ndi vi dual E E O C c harge s onl y i dent i f i ed c er t ai n cl ai m s as t o e ac h of t hem as Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

9 f ol l ow s: na t i on alori gi n (A n yalebedh i l , H erna n dez, a n d M i n am bi sser i l) , race ( B rum f i el d, E t oam a, an d G ran vi l l e) , an d race an d ag e ( D avis , Jacobs, Jef ferson and Pot i e r ) e i t he r by c he c ki ng t he ap pr o pr i at e bo x o r o t he r w i s e de s c r i bi ng t he al l eged di scr i m i n ator y cond u cti n th e n a rrat i ve sect i on of t h ei r c h arge. A p p e lla n ts cit e n o th in gth a t s u g g e s ts o th e r e w is e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e fin d th a t t h e a p p e lla n ts a ll h a v e fa ile d to e x h a u s t t h e ir ret al i ati on cl ai m s un der T i t l e V II , t h e A D E A , an d the T C H R Abecau se t h ey coul d n ot be “ reasona bl y . . . e x p e ct ed to grow out of t h e charge of d i scrim i n a ti on , ” McC la in , 5 1 9 F

. 3 d a t 2 7 3 ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. F o r t h e s a me
r e as o n, w e c o nc l ude t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t e r r i n de t e r m i n i n g t hatt he f ol l ow i n g cl ai m s w ere u n exh au st ed f or t h e ap pel l an t s l i st ed i n paren t h eses: race and age (A nyal ebe dhi l , H er nandez and M i nam bi ss er i l) , nat i onalor i gi n and age ( Brum f i e l d, Et o am a, a nd G ranvi l l e ) a nd n at i o nalo r i gi n ( D av i s , J ac o bs , a nd J e ffer so n ). b

. Ag e Di s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e ADEA a n d t h e T CHRA O n l y fou r app el l an t s present properl y exh au st ed ag e di scr i m i n ati on cl ai m s: D avis , Jacobs, Jef ferson, an d P ot i er. Th e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded af t er e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s t h a t a p p e l l a n t s ’a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms fa i l e d f o r t wo i nde pe nde nt r e as o ns : 1 ) t e r m i nat i o n o f o l de r e m pl o ye e s t o c utc o s t s a nd p r e ve nt t he v e s t i ng o f

pe ns i o n b e ne f

i t s do e s no tc o ns t i t ut e age di s c r i m i nat i o n und e r t he A D E A an d T C H R A as a m a tter of l a w ; a n d 2 ) ap p ell a n ts co u l d n ot m a k e ou t a pr i m a fa c i e c a s e o n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
. W e a g r e e wi t h t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s f

i rstgroun d of

deci si on an d, t h eref

ore, need not add ress w h et h er ap pel l an t s c ou l d m ak e out a pri m a faci e case or t h e att en da n t di scovery i ssues advance d i n t he appel l at e b r i ef i ng. Haz e n Pape r Co. v . Bigg i ns , 5 0 7 U .S

. 6 0 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ), h o ld s th a t a n e m p lo y e r ’s d e c is io n t o t a k e a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c t io n b e c a u s e o f a n e m p lo y e e ’s
se n ior ity o r be ca u se a n e m p loy e e ’ s p e n sio n is a b o u t to v e st d o e s n o t, in it se lf, Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

App e ll ant s ’a s s e rto nap p e alw ith o u tc it ati o nth ato nlyth ef ir s tthr e ee lements 9 discussed in McCoyare req uir edt o makeo u t ap ri maf a ci e ca se . As McCoyit self de mo n strate s, thisargu me nt iswhollywithout me rit. McCoy , 49 2 F .3d at 5 56. 10 vi ol at e t he A D E A

. App l yi ng Hazen , we h a v e s u b s e q u e n t l y h e l d t h a t “ t h e ADEA p roh i b i ts discri m i n a ti on on t he basis of a ge , n ot sa l a ry or sen i ority. ” A rm en d a riz
v. P i n kert on T

oba cco C o. , 5 8 F

. 3d 1 44, 1 52 ( 5th C i r. 199 5)

. Th e t est i m on y ci t ed b y a p p e lla n ts a s g r o u n d s fo r re v e r s a l d o e s n o t c h a n g e , a n d in p a r t d ir e c tly suppor t s, t he o ut c om e di c t at ed by Haz e n and A rm en d a riz

. c . Rac e a nd Nat i o nalO r i gi n Di s c r i m i nat i o n und e r Ti t l e VI I , t he TC H R A , and 42 U

. S. C

. § 1981 T u rni n g n ext t o app el l an t s’race an d n ati on alori gi n cl ai m s, th e di st ri ct
c o u r t c o n c lu d e d b e lo w th a t a ll o f a p p e lla n ts ’cla im s u n d e r a ll o f th e a p p lic a b le st at ut es fai l ed be c ause 1) appel l ant s’c oul d notm ake o ut a pr i m a fac i e cas e a s to a n y o f th eir cl a i m s an d 2) n on e of the ap p ell a n ts’eigh t attem p ts t o dem on st rat e pret ext i n res pon se t o app el l ees’ prof fer of a l egi t i m ate r eason f or t er m i nat i on had m er i t
. W e ag ree w i th t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s c onc l usi on t hat appel l ant s’fai lt o m ake o ut a pri m a fac i e c as e a s t o a ny of t hei r r ac e o r nat i onal origin d i scrim i n a ti on cl a i m s, an d , ag a i n , w e d o n ot rea ch the qu estion of p retex t. To e s t ab l i s h a pri m a faci e c as e o f r ac e o r na t i o nalo r i gi n di s c r i m i nat i o n, a plai n t i f

f m u stsh ow sh e: 1 ) is a m em ber of a protec t ed cl ass; 2 ) w as qu al i f i ed f o r t he po s i t i o n a t i s s ue ; 3) w as s ubj e c t e d t o a n a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nta c t i o n; a nd 4 ) w a s re p la c e d b y s o m e o n e o u ts id e th e p r o te c te d cla s s , o r th a t o th e r s im ila r ly
s itu a te d p e r s o n s w e r e t r e a te d m o r e fa v o r a b ly

. McCoy v. C i ty of S h reve port , 492 F .3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). O n ly th e fo u r th e le m e n t – tr e a tm e n t o f s im ila r ly 9 si t u ated em pl oyees – i s i n di spu t e. A pp el l an t s hav e fai l ed to ad d u ce o r c i t e an y evi den ce i n t h e rec ord d e m o n s tr a tin gth a t o th e r s im ila r ly s itu a te d e m p lo y e e s w e r e t r e a te d d iffe r e n tly by appe l l ee s. I n t hei r br i ef i ng, appel l ant s poi n t to th e f ol l ow i ng i t em s as Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

We n o t e th at th e s e f o u r it e m s we r e n o t th e o nly p art s o f th e r e c o r d cited by 10 appellants. In stead, appellants inclu ded numero us citation s that eitherfailed to support the cont ention adv anc ed o rmi s r e presented the cont ents of th e re cord. Appell ant s al so alle ge d n ew argum ents to sup por t thei r dis par a t et reat me nt clai ms in their ap pea l. Spe cif ical ly, appellants ar gu e fo r th e first ti me on appeal that: 1 ) th eywere passed ove r forpro motion s in favor of whit e e mployees and 2) appell ees allo wed whit e e mployees, theirfamilie s, and th eir pets toseek shelter in Christus’ s facility during Hurricane Rita butrefu sed similar treatment to b lack employees. Arguments suchas these , present edf ort he first time on appeal, are waived

. LeMaire v. Louisiana , 48 0 F .3d 3 83, 387(5th Cir. 2 007) (“[A ]rgu m en t s not r aised b ef or e th e di strictc ourtarewaivedan d can n otb e rais edf orth e firs t ti meo napp eal. ”)

. Appe llants make no effort in any of their briefing to identify the nation al origins of 11 the all eged c omparators o r explain their failure to doso. Appell ant s appe ar to c once de in their re ply brief that th e Moffitt Affidavit is th e o nly 12 sourceof the missing

compar at or informationwhenth eyassert th at: “Th e alle gation s were

11 s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t ev id e n c e s a tis fy in g th e fo u r th e le m e n t of th e p r im a fa c ie
case: 1) t h e Sm i l ex P ro cto red T est s Lis t ; 2) t h e Sm i l ex R S P T rai n i n g S yst em S u m m a ry R ep ort; 3) exc erp ts of W i l l m a n ’ s d ep ositi on testi m on y; a n d 4) K eit h M of f i t t ’ s af f i da vi t
. A s n ot ed abov e, a pp el l an t s’h ave fai l ed t o app eal t h e di st ri ct

10
c o u r t ’s e x c lu s io n o f K e it h M o ff it t ’s a ff id a v it . T h e c it a t io n s to W il lm a n ’s dep osi t i on ei t h er do not s u pp o rt a pp el l an t s’argu m en t or m i srepresent h er t est i m on y. A s s u ch, t h e onl y i t em s of com pete n t s u m m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce a d va n ced by ap p ell a n ts are the P roctor ed T est L i st an d the S u m m a ry R ep ort. N e i t he r of

t he s e i t e m s , howev e r , m ak e outa pr i m a fac i e c as e . Fi r s t , t he P roct ored T estL i stact u al l y cuts aga i n sta pp el l an t s i n tha t i t show s app el l ees’ retes t po l i cy w a s ap p l i ed to a t l ea st on e n on -m i n ority i n d i vid u a l , K eit h M off i tt. S e c o n d , th e S u m m a r y R e p o r t, a s e x p la in e d b y t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, d o e s n o t c o n ta in suf f i c i ent i nf

or m at i on t o m a k e outa pr i m a fac i e c as e. App el l ant s have repeatedl y rel i ed u pon a chart creat ed by t h ei r c ou n selusi n g t h e Su m m ary R eport t o dem on st rat e app el l ees’di sparate t reat m en t of w h i t e em pl oyees. Y et t h e Sum m ar y Repo r t do e s no t i nc l ude any i nf o r m at i o n r e ga r di ng t he race or
n a tion a l orig in of th e se su p p o se d co m p a ra to rs . A p p e ll a n ts a tte m p t to ide n tify t he r ac e s of

t he s e c o m pa r at o r s us i ng t he M o f f i t t Af f i da vi t no t w i t hs t and i ng 11 12 Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

base d also in part on the evidence in the declaration of Keith Moffitt

. . . who id enti fiedth e raceso f th e em pl oyee s lis te d on th e Sm il ex su mmary re po rt b elow .” (e mp h a si s ino ri gin al)

. Thou ghapp ell ant s also claim theyw ere afforde d in suffici ent discovery , th eyfailed 13 to movefor reli ef under Fede ral Rule of C ivil Pro cedur e 5 6(f) and ther eforeh ave waived this argu me nt onapp eal. United States v. Bloo m , 112 F.3d 200 , 20 5 n .17 (5thC ir. 1 997) (failur e to moveu nder Rule 56(f) waives aparty’ s compl aint thatthe di strict court ruled after in a de qu atedis covery); Pot te r v. Delta Air L ines , 98F .3d 881 , 8 87 ( 5thC ir. 1 996) (failur e to seek re lie f un der Rule 56(f) “foreclose[s] [a party] from arguing th at [it] di d not h ave a dequ ate ti mef ordis cov ery”) ; se e general ly11 JAM ES WM . M O O RE ET AL ., M O O RE ’ S F ED ERAL P RACTI CE § 5 6 .1 0 (8)(b ) (2 0 1 0) (dis cu ssin gth e a pp ellate conse qu ence s of failu ret o makeaRule5 6 (f ) mo tion). 12 t he fac t t hat i t i s not bef or e t he c our t
. A c c or di ngl y, appel l ant s have fai l ed t o 13 d e m o n s tr a te a p r im a fa c ie c a s e o f r a c e o r n a tio n a l o r ig in d is c r im in a tio n a s to a ll ap pel l an t s. 2
. A p p e l l a n t s ’4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 1 R e t a l i a t i o n C l a i ms Th e di st r i c t c our t gra n t ed s um m ar y j udgm enton appe l l ant s’§ 1981
r e ta lia tio n c la im s fo r tw o r e a s o n s : 1 ) a p p e lla n ts fa ile d to s ta te a p la u s ib le cla im for rel i ef as t o retali a ti on i n th eir T h i rd A m en d ed C om p l a i n t; an d 2) ap p ell a n ts fai l ed to ad van ce com petent s u m m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce dem on st rat i n g t h ey h a d e n g a g e d in p r o te c te d a c tiv ity . A p p e lla n ts ’a d d r e s s th e m e r its o f th is cla im
on l y i n t h ei r r epl y bri ef

. A ccor di n gl y, an y cl ai m ed erroras t o th e g ra n t of
s um m ary j u dg m e nt o n a ppe l l ant s ’§ 1 98 1 r e t al i at i o n c l ai m s ha s b e e n wai ve d. S ee T h arl i ng v. C i ty of

PortL ava ca , 32 9 F. 3d 42 2, 43 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) (ho l di ng th a t a p p e lla n t w a iv e d is s u e b y fa ilin gto ra is e it in o p e n in gb r ie f). 3. A pp el l an t s’H ost i l e W ork E n vi ronm en t an d D i sparate I m pa ct C l a i ms F in a lly , w e a d d r e s s a p p e lla n ts ’ c la im th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in di sm i ssi n g t h e i r host i l e w ork en vi ronm en t an d d i sparate i m pa ctcl ai m s. A pp el l an t s’T h i rd A m en ded C om pl ai n t does not r eference ei t h er a host i l e w ork
e n v i r o n m e n t c l a i m o r a d i s p a r a t e i m p a c t c l a i m . Th e fa c t s i n c l u d e d i n t he
com p l a i n t do n ot d escr i b e a h ostil e w ork en viron m en t cl a i m or a disp a ra te Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 09- 20410

13 i m pac t c l ai m . N ei t her of t hes e c l ai m s ar e di sc uss ed anyw her e i n appel l ant s’61- p a g e r e s p o n s e t o a p p e l l e e s ’o r i g i n a lmo t i o n o f s u mm a r y j u d g me n t
. T h e f i r s t t i me a p p e lla n ts in a n y w a y s u g g e s t th e y a r e a d v a n c in ge ith e r cla im a p p e a r s in th e ir im p r o p e r ly f

ile d s u r -r e p ly

. A s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly e x p la in e d b e lo w , a pl ai n t i f f m ay n ot rel y on new cl ai m s r ai sed f or t h e f i rstt i m e i n a res pon se – l et
a lo n e a s u r -r e p l y –to a m o tio n fo r s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. S ee C u t rer a v. B d

. of Super vi s or s of

La. St at e Uni v. , 429 F

. 3d 108 , 113 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) ( “A cl ai m w h i ch i s not rai sed i n t h e com pl ai n t , b u t , rather, is rais ed on l y i n respon se t o a m ot i on fo r s um m a r y j ud g m e nti s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t he c o ur t
. ” )

. Ad d i t i o na l l y,

“ [ c] on cl u sory al l egati on s, specul ati o n , an d u n sub st an t i ated assert i on s are in a d e qu ate t o sat i sf y t h e non m ovan t ’ s burd en i n a m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u d gm en t, ” R am sey v. Hend ers on , 2 86 F

. 3d 2 64, 2 69 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) ( qu ot ati on om i t t ed), m u ch l ess m ak e out a c l ai m . A ccor di n gl y, w e a gree w i t h t h e deci si on b e l o w t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s ’h o s t i l e wo r k e n v i r o n me n t a n dd i s p a r a t e i mp a c tc l a i ms
w ere n ot p rop erly b efore th e cou rt. I V . C ONC L US I ON F o r th e fo r e g o i n g re a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED. Case: 09-20410 Document: 00511048299 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/11/2010