United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50931

Rachel Escamilla, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Pamela Elliott; Edwards County, Texas, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CV-121

Before Smith, Wiener, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rachel Escamilla was fired from her job as a jailer in Edwards County, 

Texas. She sued the county and its sheriff, Pamela Elliott, alleging a violation 

of her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the First Amendment, and provisions 

of the Texas constitution. She also claimed a malicious prosecution. The 

district court granted summary judgment to defendants, but a panel of this 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

July 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50931 Document: 00516380266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2022
No. 21-50931

2

court reversed as to the Section 1981 claims. Escamilla v. Elliott, 816 F. App’x 

919, 929 (5th Cir. 2020). The panel held that the district court had erred in 

its analysis of the Section 1981 claim, but “we have not determined that 

Escamilla’s allegations necessarily otherwise state a plausible claim for relief 

or are sufficient to survive summary judgment.” Id. at 924. 

On remand, the defendants again moved for summary judgment on 

the merits of the Section 1981 claims. The district court again granted 

summary judgment. Escamilla appealed. We AFFIRM.

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

Huynh v. Walmart Inc., 30 F.4th 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2022). Section 1981 

claims lacking direct evidence, like Title VII claims, are subject to the 

McDonnell Douglas framework. Owens v. Circassia Pharms., Inc., 33 F.4th 814, 

825 (5th Cir. 2022). Under this framework, a claimant first must put on a 

prima facie case of racial discrimination. 1

 Id. If she does so, the burden shifts 

to the defendants to demonstrate a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” 

for their actions. Id. (quoting Watkins v. Tregre, 997 F.3d 275, 282 (5th Cir. 

2021)). If such a reason is offered, the claimant must provide evidence that 

the stated reason is pretextual. Id. 

On remand, the district court concluded that Escamilla established a 

prima facie case of racial discrimination. However, the court found that 

Elliott had offered a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Escamilla, 

1 Though she does not appeal the district court’s conclusion that she established a 

prima facie case of discrimination, Escamilla still argues the district court erred in that

portion of its analysis by rejecting certain comparator employees that Escamilla argues were 

conceded as such by the defendants. We disagree. The district court properly applied this 

circuit’s law in concluding that significant differences in both job responsibilities and 

reasons for termination rendered these employees improper comparators. See Ross v. 

Judson Indep. Sch. Dist., 993 F.3d 315, 322–23 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 216 (2021). 

Case: 21-50931 Document: 00516380266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2022
No. 21-50931

3

namely that her login credentials had been used in an unauthorized license 

plate search. The court then concluded that Escamilla had not demonstrated

that Elliott’s reason was pretextual. 

Escamilla argues on appeal that the district court improperly weighed 

the evidence and drew impermissible inferences in favor of the defendants to 

conclude that no pretext had been shown. She contends that the following 

evidence shows that Elliott’s reason was pretextual: (1) Elliott’s failure to 

attend an administrative hearing adjudicating whether Escamilla should be 

dishonorably discharged; (2) that agency’s subsequent overturning of the 

discharge because of Elliott’s absence; (3) a no-bill from a grand jury on 

potential criminal charges against Escamilla; (4) a deputy’s recorded 

statement that “there was nothing” when he conducted an after-the-fact 

investigation into Escamilla’s conduct, despite his report to the contrary; (5) 

that deputy’s history of racist remarks; (6) another coworker’s unsupported 

insistence that Escamilla’s firing had to be because of her race; and (7) minor 

inconsistencies in Escamilla’s termination letter and the investigative report, 

including evidence that Escamilla was away from her computer when the 

incident occurred.

We agree with the district court that this evidence does not cast 

meaningful doubt on Elliott’s decision to fire Escamilla because of a violation 

of jail confidentiality policy.

2 See Harville v. City of Houston, 945 F.3d 870, 

877 (5th Cir. 2019) (“The issue at the pretext stage is not whether the 

2 Because we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Escamilla failed to show 

pretext under McDonnell Douglas, we do not reach Elliott’s argument that Escamilla cannot 

prevail on her Section 1981 claims against Elliott in her individual capacity. See Foley v. 

Univ. of Houston Sys., 355 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2003) (identifying tension in our caselaw 

about the reach of Section 1981 to individuals acting in their private capacities). 

Case: 21-50931 Document: 00516380266 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2022
No. 21-50931

4

[defendants’] reason was actually correct or fair, but whether the 

decisionmakers honestly believed the reason.”). 

Elliott also argues that the district court erred by failing to treat as 

binding a Texas state agency’s determination that Escamilla committed no 

wrongdoing. We conclude that collateral estoppel does not apply in this 

circumstance because the issue was neither actually litigated nor identical to

the issue presented in the other forum. See Bradberry v. Jefferson Cnty., 732 

F.3d 540, 548–49 (5th Cir. 2013).

As to the district court’s rejection of some evidence about Elliott’s 

alleged racism, those arguments could have been but were not presented in 

her first appeal to this court. Thus, that issue is forfeited. Medical Ctr. 

Pharmacy v. Holder, 634 F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-50931 Document: 00516380266 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/01/2022