# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-30652 Summary Calendar

Matthew Ragona, Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus Louisiana Workforce Commission, Defendant—Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 19-CV-960

Before Clement, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Matthew Ragona appeals the dism issal on summary judgment of his claims of employment discrimination brought against his former employer, the Louisiana Workforce Commission (LWC). For the reasons that follow,

we AFFIRM

.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 5, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-30652 Document: 00516421332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2022No. 21-30652

2 I Ragona worked for the LWC from De cember 2014 to May 2018. He has cerebral palsy, a physical disab ility. On May 14, 2018, LWC’s Human Resources Department received a test imonial written by employee Heather Daigrepont, which LWC treated as a formal complaint of sexual harassment. The statement described a series of a lleged incidents between Daigrepont and Ragona, such as whistling at Da igrepont when she walked by; his repeated requests to have lunch toge ther and her repeat ed rejections; an unsolicited gift and handwritten poem on Mother’s Day; and an uninvited kiss on the neck in the office park ing lot. The statement described Daigrepont’s concern that Ragona’s ro mantic advances had become “more aggressive” over time. The record also reflects that, two months prior, Ragona had received a “verbal warn ing” and a copy of LWC’s Sexual Harassment policy “with [the] pertinent parts highlighted” after a different female employee had raised a compla int about Ragona. On May 31, LWC terminated Ragona’s employment. Ragona timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Louisiana Commission on Human Rights, alleging discriminati on based on sex and disability. He received a right to sue letter from th e EEOC on April 25, 2019. He timely filed suit in federal cour t, raising employment discrimination claims against LWC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. , and the Americans with Disab ilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 et seq . Following discovery, LW C moved for summary judgment on both claims, which the district co urt granted. Ragona timely appealed.
II
We review a district cour t’s grant of summary judgment de novo

. In re La. Crawfish Producers , 852 F.3d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 2017). Summary Case: 21-30652 Document: 00516421332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2022No. 21-30652

3 judgment is appropriate where “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.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Id.
The district court dismissed the Titl e VII claim becaus e it found that Ragona failed to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case of gender discrimination: identifying similarly si tuated female co-workers who engaged in “nearly identical” conduct that “allegedly drew dissimilar employment decisions.” Garcia v. Pro. Contract Servs., Inc. , 938 F.3d 236, 244 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Lee v. Ks. City So. Rwy. Co. , 574 F.3d 253, 25 9–60 (5th Cir. 2009)); cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Ragona asserts that “[i]t is the ulti mate form of discrimination to hold a male employee to a higher standard of conduct than similarly situated female employees.” He contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his claim of gender discrimi nation because similarly situated female employees at LWC allegedly enga ged in inappropriat e verbal jokes. But, significantly, nothing in the reco rd supports that LWC received written testimonials of sexual harassment aris ing from the conduct of any similarly situated female employees. 1 Thus, even assuming the truth of Ragona’s assertions, the “difference between [his] conduct and that of those alleged to be similarly situated accounts for the difference in treatment received from [LWC].” Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys. , 271 F.3d 212, 221 (5th Cir. 2001).

1 Ragona argues that LWC unfairly treat ed Daigrepont’s statement as a complaint of sexual harassment and that the kiss in the parking lot was merely a “failed attempt at friendship.” Regardless, Title VII does not protect against “unfair” business decisions, only those motivated by discriminatory animus. See Nieto v. L&H Packing Co. , 108 F.3d 621, 624 (5th Cir. 1997). No thing in the record substantiate s that LWC treated the written testimonial differently because of Ragona’s gender. Case: 21-30652 Document: 00516421332 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2022No. 21-30652

4 The district court did not err when it found that the Title VII claim failed as a matter of law.
The district court also did not err when it dismissed the claim of disability-based employment discrimina tion under the ADA because Ragona failed to establish a causal connecti on between his termination and his disability. Ragona summarily asserts th at his “visible disability motivated the Daigrepont Statement, which[] ultimate ly led to the termination of [his] employment.” But he fails to set forth any argument justifying this conclusory assertion and nothing in th e record supports it. Speculative allegations are insufficient to over come a motion for summary judgment. Topalian v. Ehrman , 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir. 1992). The ADA claim also fails as a matter of law.
We AFFIRM

. Case: 21-30652 Document: 00516421332 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/05/2022