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 dismissal 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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: 08/05/2022
No. 21-30652 

2 

I 

Ragona worked for the LWC from December 2014 to May 2018. He 

has cerebral palsy, a physical disability. On May 14, 2018, LWC’s Human 

Resources Department received a testimonial written by employee Heather 

Daigrepont, which LWC treated as a formal complaint of sexual harassment. 

The statement described a series of alleged incidents between Daigrepont 

and Ragona, such as whistling at Daigrepont when she walked by; his 

repeated requests to have lunch together and her repeated rejections; an 

unsolicited gift and handwritten poem on Mother’s Day; and an uninvited 

kiss on the neck in the office parking lot. The statement described 

Daigrepont’s concern that Ragona’s romantic advances had become “more 

aggressive” over time. The record also reflects that, two months prior, 

Ragona had received a “verbal warning” and a copy of LWC’s Sexual 

Harassment policy “with [the] pertinent parts highlighted” after a different 

female employee had raised a complaint 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 discrimination based on sex and disability. He 

received a right to sue letter from the EEOC on April 25, 2019. He timely 

filed suit in federal court, 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 Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12102 et seq. Following discovery, LWC moved for summary judgment 

on both claims, which the district court granted. Ragona timely appealed. 

II 

We review a district court’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: 08/05/2022
No. 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 Title VII claim because it found that 

Ragona failed to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case of gender 

discrimination: identifying similarly situated 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, 259–60 (5th Cir. 

2009)); cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). 

Ragona asserts that “[i]t is the ultimate 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 discrimination because similarly situated 

female employees at LWC allegedly engaged in inappropriate verbal jokes. 

But, significantly, nothing in the record supports that LWC received written 

testimonials of sexual harassment arising 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 treated 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). Nothing in the record substantiates that LWC treated the written 

testimonial differently because of Ragona’s gender. 

Case: 21-30652 Document: 00516421332 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
No. 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 discrimination under the ADA because Ragona 

failed to establish a causal connection between his termination and his 

disability. Ragona summarily asserts that his “visible disability motivated the 

Daigrepont Statement, which[] ultimately led to the termination of [his] 

employment.” But he fails to set forth any argument justifying this 

conclusory assertion and nothing in the record supports it. Speculative 

allegations are insufficient to overcome 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