Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60972 Su m m ar y Cal endar

HATT I E M OORE P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. SOLAR G RO U P D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 182

B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * A pp el l an tH att i e M oore c h al l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j udg m e ntof h e rc l ai m s f o re m pl o ym e ntdi s c r i m i nat i o n und e rTi t l e VI I o f t he C ivi lR i gh t s A ctof

196 4, 42 U

. S

. C

. § 2000 e e t s e q . ( 20 03 & S u pp . 2 007) , a nd i n t en t i on ali n f

l i ct i on of em ot i on al di st ress u n der M i ssi ssi pp il aw . B ecau se t h ere a re n o g en u i n e issu es o f m a terialfa ct an d A p p ell ee S olar G rou p i s en ti tle d to j u d g m e n ta s a mat t e ro f l a w, we AF FI RM

. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60972

Th es e thre e crewl ea dersareals o Afric an -Americanf em ale s. 1 Dyke s s upervis edth e crewl ea ders . Mo ore report eddirectlyto the crewl ea ders . 2 2 M oore, an A f

ri can - A m eri can fem al e, w as hir ed by S ol ar G roup i n Jan u ary 200 7 f rom a t em porary em pl oym en t servi ce f or t h e posi t i on of

m ater i alha n dl er. G w en B arn es, Sh i rl ey Jon es, an d Jen n i fer D u cksw ort h w ere al l“ crew l ead ers”
w h o sup ervi sed M oore du ri n g h er em pl oym en t
. Th ey assi gn ed tasks t o M oore, 1
w ho w as s t at i oned a ta w or k des k. M oo r e do es notc l ai m t hats he w as di s c r i m i nat e d a ga i ns t b y B arne s , J o ne s , o rD uc ks w o r t h, a nd s he c i t e s no i n stan ces o f w ron gd oin g d u ri n g h er d a y-to-da y e m p l oy m en t. O n M a rch 2, 2 0 0 7 , p rod u cti on s u p erv i sor J i m m y D yk es (“ D yk es”), a w h i te
m al e , a ppr o ac he d M o o r e . D yk e s s hi ne d a “ l i t t l e ba by f l as hl i ght []

. . . r e alq ui c k” 2 i n M oore’ s face, w h i ch M oore al l eges caused a bu rni n g sensati on i n her eyes. D yk es pu rport edl y sai d to M oore, “ I’ m goi n g t o ha ve [ t o] ask you t o l eave becau se I’m g iv in gP a t r i c i a t h i s jo b

. G o clo c ko u t.” M o o r e b e lie v e s th a t “ P a tr ic ia ” is Patr i c i a Pri nce , a w hi t e w om an w ho w as em pl oye d a s a m at er i alhandl erby S o la r G ro u p a t th e tim e . D y k e s a cc o m p a n ied M o o re on a n a d u lt tricy cle -- al l e ge dl y c l o s e l y - - a s s he w al ke d t he 1 00 t o 1 50 y ar ds f r o m t he t i m e c l o c k t o t he pl antex i t
. M oo r e had no prev i ous i nt er ac t i ons w i t h D ykes , an d she di d n otdeal
w ith h im a fte rh e rte r m in a tio n . M oore f i l ed su i tin federalcou rt , a l l egi n g t h at t h i s i n ci den tw as a vi ol ati on of T i tl e V II an d con sti tu tes i n ten ti on a li n fl i cti on of em oti on a ldistress. In i ts
s um m ar y j udg m e nt e vi de nc e , So l ar G r o up s ubm i t t e d t he de po s i t i o n t e s t i m o ny of D yk es and af

f i da vi t s of

B arn es, Jon es and D u cksw ort h , al lof w h om i n di cat ed t h at M oore w as f

i red at t h e rec om m en da t i on of her cr ew l ead e rs d u e t o her
u n sa ti sfactoryw ork pe rform a n ce. M oo re cl a i m s, w i th ou t evide n ti a rysu p p ort, th a t s u c h ju s tific a tio n is p r e te x tu a l.N o. 08- 60972

Th e di s p ut e c e nt er s aro un d wheth er an exi s tin g whit e e m p loye e , a s o p p osed t o a 3 newly -hire d white employee, coul d “replace” Moore for purposes of establi shin g a prima facie case. 3 W e revi ew t h e gran tof sum m ary j u dg m en t de novo, draw i n g al li n ferences in th e n o n -m o v a n t’s fa v o r . Ce le s t i ne v . Pe t r o le o s de Ve nez ue l laSA , 266 F

. 3d 343, 34 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1)

. A pl ai nt i f f ’ s Ti t l e VI I c l ai m i s ana l yz e d unde r t he b ur de nsh ifti n gfra m e w o rk of McD on n el lD ouglas Corp. v. G ree n , 411 U

. S. 792, 802- 04 (1 9 7 3 ). S ee Tu rner v. B aylorR i cha rdson Med. C t r. , 476 F

. 3d 337 , 345 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. W h ere, as here, a p la in tiff does not produ ce di rectevi den ce of di s c r i m i nat i o n, t he m o di f i e d McD o nne l lD o uglas app roach i s em pl oyed

. U n der th a t a n a ly s is , [T ]h e p l ai n t i f

f m u stf

i rstdem on st rat e a pri m a faci e case of di scr i m i n ati on ; t h e defen da n tt h en m u start i cu l ate a l egi t i m ate, n o n -d iscr im in a to ryre a so n forits d e cisio n to ter m in a te th e p la in tiff; a n d , if th e d e fe n d a n t m e e ts its b u rd e n of p ro d u ctio n , th e p la in tiff m u stt h en of

fer s u f f i ci en tevi den ce t o cr eate a genu i n e i ssue of m at er i alfac tt hatei t her( 1) the em pl oye r ’ s r eas on i s a pr et extor( 2) t h at t h e em pl oyer’ s reason , w h i l e true, i s onl y on e of t h e reasons f

or it s c o n d u c t , a n d a n o t h e r “ m o t iv a t in g fa c t o r” is t h e p l a i n t if f’s protec t ed cha ract eri st i c. Bu r r e l lv . D r . Pe

ppe r /Se v e n U

p Bo t t l i ng G r

p. , 482 F

. 3d 408 , 411

- 12 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e distr ict court assum ed argu en do that M oore had est abli shed her pri m a fac i e cas e, si nce she i s a m em berof a pr ot ec t ed c l as s, w as s ubj ec t ed t o a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c t i o n , w a s q u a lifie d fo rh e rp o s itio n , a n d w a s a lle g e d ly
r e p la c e d b ys o m e o n e o u ts id e th e p r o te c te dcla s s . S ee Tu rner , 476 F. 3d at345. Al t ho ugh t he r e i s so m e di s put e as t o w he t he rM o o r e w as re pl ac e d b y s o m e o ne o u t s i d e t h e p r o t e c t e d c l a s s , w e t o o w i l la s s u me t h a ts h e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma 3 faci e case. I n r e s po ns e t o M o o r e ’ s pr i m a fac i e c as e , So l arG r o up a r t i c ul at e d a l e gi t i m at e , no n- di s c r i m i nat o r y r e as o n f o rM o o r e ’ s t e r m i nat i o n: t hats heN o. 08- 60972

4 pe r f o r m e d he rj o b t as ks uns at i s fac t o r i l y. Ac c o r di ngly, “ t he s o l e r e m ai ni ng i s s ue
w as ‘ di s c r i m i nat i o n velnon [. ]” R eeve s v. S an d ers on P l u m bi ng Prods. , I n c. , 530 U

. S

. 133 , 1 4 3 (2 0 0 0)

. A l t h ou gh M oore argues t h at Sol ar G roup ’ s c l ai m ed
m o t iva t i o n i s a pr e t e xtf o rr ac e - ba s e d di s c r i m i nat i o n, she has fai l e d t o of fe ra ny evi de nc e t o c r e at e a g e nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i alfac tt hatt he e m pl o ye r ’ s reason
m a s k s in te n tio n a l d is c r im in a tio n . Se ei d. at 141. M oo r e’ s subj ec t ive bel i ef t hat
s he w as t he v i c t i m of di s c r i m i nat i o n, st and i ng al o ne , i s note vi de nc e s uf f i c i e nt to d e fe a t a s u m m a r yju d g m e n t m o tio n . Se eBaue rv . Al be m ar leCor p. , 169 F. 3d 9 6 2 , 9 6 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “T h is co u rt h a s c o n sis te n tlyh e ldth a t a n em p lo y e e ’s subj ec t ive bel i ef of di sc r i m i nat i on al one i s not suf f i c i ent t o w ar r ant j u d i ci al
r e lie f.” (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d cit a tio n o m itt e d )). M o o r e ur g e s th a tf

a c ti s s u e s r e m ai n. She c i t e s i nc o ns i s t e nc i e s b e t w e e n t he d e p o s itio n te s tim on y o f M oo re a n d D y k e s re g a r d in gth e cir c u m s ta n c e s o f h e re x it f rom t h e pl an ton M arch 2, 200 7. H ow ever, t h ese di spu t es are i m m ater i alt o her bu rden i n a T i t l e V II cl ai m becau se, accepti n g h er vers i on of t h e fact s, she does
n o t h a v e a cla im

. S ee Celo texCo rp . v . Ca tre tt , 477 U

. S. 317, 323 ( 1986) ( “a
c o m pl e t e fai l ur e o f pr o o f c o nc e r ni ng an e s s e nt i al e l e m e nt o f t h e no nm o vi ng p a rty’ s ca se n ece ssa ri l y re n d ers a l loth er facts i m m a terial

. ”) W e a ls o a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t h a t s u m m a r yju d g m e n t is ap propri ate f

or M o ore’ s c l ai m of

i n t en t i on ali n f

l i ct i on of

em ot i on aldi st ress . U n der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , e sta b li shi n g t h i s t ortrequi res proof of condu ctso

“‘ w a n ton an d w i l ful .

. . [th a t] i t w ou l d ev ok e ou tr a g e o r rev u l sion

. ’” Sp e e d v. S co tt , 787 So. 2d 626, 630 (M i ss . 2001) ( quot i ng Leaf R i ve rFor e s tPro ds. , I nc. v. F erguson , 6 6 2 S o . 2 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 )). “[M ]e e tin gth e re q u is ite s o f a cla im for i n ten ti on a l i n fl i cti on of em oti on a ldistress is a tallord er in M i ssissi p p i

. ” I d. ( quot i ng Je nki ns v . Ci ty of G r e nada , 8 1 3 F

. S u p p . 4 4 3 , 4 4 6 (N .D

. M iss

. 1 9 9 3 )). H er e, M oo r e c l ai m s t ha t t h e fol l ow i n g co n d u ct con sti tu tes i nt ent i onal i nf l i c t i o n o f

e m o t i o naldi s t r e s s : ( 1) D yk e s b r i e f l y “ z i g- z ag ge d” a s m al lf l as hl i ghtN o. 08- 60972

5 i n he re ye s , c aus i ng he r“ phy s i c ala s w e l la s e m o t i o naldi s t r e s s a tt he t i m e , ” a nd ( 2) D yk e s r o de a n a dul tt r i c yc l e b e hi nd h e rf o r1 00

- 15 0 ya r ds i n a m e nac i ng fash i on as she exi t ed the pl an t
. M oore c on t en ds t h at t h e d istri ctcourt i m perm i ssibl y w ei gh ed fact s and f ou n d D yk es ’ s dif

f e r e ntv e r s i o n of

t h i s s i t u ati on
m o r e c r e dibl e . H o w e ve r , t hati s no ta c c ur at e . The di s t r i c tc o ur t , a c c e pt i ng M o o r e ’ s v e r s io n o f th e fa c ts , co n c lu d e d th a t t h o s e fa c ts d o n o t e s ta b lis h a cla im of i n t en t i on ali n f

l i ct i on of

em ot i on aldi st ress as a m att er of l aw . W e agree. W h atever t h e em ot i on alt ol lon M oore, M oore’ s vers i on of th e facts does n ot consti t u t e “ i n t ol erabl e, outrageou s orrevol t i n g[] ” condu ctrequi red t o est abli sh th e M is s is s ip p i to r t o f in te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . Se ei d. at 631. A c c o r d in g ly , su m m a r yju d g m e n t w a s a p p r o p r ia te
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.