### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20411

L . W AY N E J A C K S O N , P la in tiff

–A p p e lla n t, v. CA L

- W ES T ER N P AC KA GI NG C OR P OR AT I ON, D efen da n t–A pp el l ee .

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 ct of T exas
B ef ore S M ITH , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P R ISC ILL A R
. O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg e: W ayn e Jackson ap pea l s t h e di st ri ct court’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en t on h i s ag e d i scrim i n a ti on claim s u n d er th e A ge D i scrim i n a ti on i n E m p l oy m en t A ct, 2 9 U .S .C . § § 6 2 1 -6 3 4
. F o r th e fo llo w in g re a s o n s , w e a ffir m .
I Ja c ks o n was e m pl o ye d by C al

- W e s t e r n Pac ka gi ng Cor po r at i o n i n v ar i o us m a n a g e r ia l p o s it io n s f r o m 1 9 9 9 u n t il J u n e 2 0 0 7 . I n M a y 2 0 0 7 , o n e o f J a c k s o n ’s
cow orkers, K aren H opp er, em ai l ed h er s u p e rv isor , C al

- W est ern C on t rol l er Ja m e s Ros e t t i , a s s e r t i ng t hatJ ac ks o n ha d b e e n e nga gi ng i n b e hav i o r t hatm ad e United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 2, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

2 h er “ u n com f

ort a bl e. ” Sh e expl ai n ed that Jackson ha d ask ed to see her

“ [b r e a s t s ] ” a n d h a d c o m m e n t e d t h a t h e r b o y f r i e n d mus t l i k e “ b i g b o o b s . ” S he st ated t h at Jackson h ad “ on m an y occasi on s” m ad e i n ap propri ate s t atem en t s or com m en t s i n f

ront of her an d h er f

em al e cow orkers. I n add iti o n , she t ol d h er s upe r vi s o r t hate ve r y t i m e s he s aw Ja c ks o n he t ri ed t o t o uc h he r a nd t hathe h ad once cor n ered her an d ask ed h er t o rai se h er shi rt
. R oset t it h en i n f orm ed C hi ef O per at i ng O f

f i c er Ji m m y Ph el ps of Jac kso n’ s behavi or . Phel ps bega n an i nt e r nali nve s t i ga t i o n a nd i nt e r vi e w e d s e ve r ale m pl o ye e s w ho co r r o bo r at e d t he al l egati on s. To c on f

i rm t h e f

i n di n gs, P h el ps h i red an att orney, V i ct ori a P h i pp s, t o c o n d u c t a n e x t e r n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o J a c k s o n ’ s b e h a v i o r . H e r i n t e r v i e ws w i t h both m al e an d fem al e cow orkers c on f i rm ed the h arassm en t al l egati on s. And w he n Phi pps i nt e r vi e w e d J ac ks o n, he a dm i t t e d t hathe w as “ vi ndi c t i ve ” a nd
w o u ld tr y “le g a lly ” t o g e t b a c k a t t h o s e m a k in g a lle g a tio n s a g a in s t h im
. I n June 20 07 , Phel ps t e r m i nat e d Ja c ks o n f o r hi s no n- c o m pl i anc e w i t h t he
c om p a n y’ s se xualhar as sm ent pol i c y, w hi c h Jac kso n had si gned w hen he w as h i r e d i n 1 9 9 9
. J a c k s o n w a s s i x t y - n i n e y e a r s o l d wh e n h e w a s t e r mi n a t e d
. H e w as repl aced by M on t e D u ke, w h o w as f ort y- t w o at t h e t i m e. J a c k s o n b r o u g h t s u it a g a in s t C a l-W e s te r n fo r a g e d is c r im in a ti o n . H is cl ai m p ri m ari l y rel i ed on a rem ark P h el ps al l eged l y m ad e t o an ot h er c ow orker in 2 0 0 6 th a t J a c k s o n w a s a n “ o ld , g r a y -h a ir e d fa r t” a n d th a t t h e co w o r k e r w o u ld b e in ch a rg e w h en J a ck son retired
. C a l -W ester n m ov ed f or su m m a ry j u d gm en t. T he di s t r i c t c o ur t r ul e d t hat Ja c ks o n had al l e ge d a pr i m a fac i e case of di s c r i m i nat i o n a nd t hatCal

- W e s t e r n ha d o f fe r e d a l e gi t i m at e , no ndi scri m i nat or y r eas on f orf i r i ng hi m , but t hat Jac kso n had fai l ed t o s how t hat t her e w as a fac t i ss ue as t o w het her C al

- W estern’ s r eas on f orf i r i ng hi m w as pretextu a l
. Jac kso n ar gues on appe alt hat t he di st r i c t c our t dec i ded fac t ual i s s ue s at the s um m ar y j udg m e nt s t ag e a nd i m pr o pe r l y r e l i e d o n i nc o m pe t e nt
sum m ar y j udgm ent ev i denc e i n i t s r ul i ng. Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

DIRE CTV, In c. v. Bu dde n , 4 2 0F .3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 0( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). 1 E.E.O.C. v. WC&M Ent ers., I nc. , 4 9 6F .3 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 2 Thre adg ill v. P

rudent ial Sec. Grou

p, I nc. , 1 4 5 F .3 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8). 3 San dstad v. C

B Richard Ellis, In c. , 3 0 9F .3 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 4 Bru mfield v. Hollins , 5 5 1 F .3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 5 Ande rsonv. L ibert

y Lobby, I

nc. , 4 7 7U .S
. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8( 1 9 8 6). 6 3 II Ja c ks o n fi rst cha l l e nge s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r e l i anc e o n s e ve r als w o r n, n ot ari zed aff

i da vi t s t en dered b y C al

- W est ern as sum m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce. Ja c ks o n a r gue s t hatt he a f f i da vi t s a r e no t com pe t e nt s um m ar y j udg m e nt
e v id e n c e s in c e th e y d o n o t s ta te th a t t h e y w e r e s w o r n to b e “t r u e a n d co r r e c t.” J a c k s o n ’ s a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. T h e ca s e s o n w h i c h h e r e lie s a ll rel ate t o u n sw orn af f i da vi t s. N on e of

t h e stat em en t s at i ssue i n t h i s c ase w ere uns w o r n. Addi t i o nal l y, w e ha ve e xp r e s s l y he l d t hat“ t he r e i s no r e qui r e m e nt t h a t s w o r n a ff

id a v it s h a v e a s t a t e m e n t th a t th e c o n t e n t s a r e ‘tr u e a n d c o r r e c t .’” 1

“ S w orn aff

i da vi t s . . . are ce rt ai n l y ap propri ate f or r evi ew on a R u l e 56 m ot i on f o r s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. ” Ac c o r di ngl y, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t pr o pe r l y r e l i e d o n t he 2
sw orn aff

i da vi t s. III W e r e vi e w t he g r anto f a m o t i o n f

o r s um m ar y j udg m e nt de no vo , a ppl yi ng t h e sam e st an da rd as t h e di st ri ct court. W e vi ew t h e evi den ce i n t h e l i gh t m ost 3 fav o r ab l e t o t he no n- m o vi ng pa r t y and a vo i d c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i nat i o ns a nd
w e i gh i n g of

t he e vi de nc e . Sum m ar y j udg m e nt i s a ppr o pr i at e w he n t he 4
c o m pe t e nt sum m ar y j udg m e nt ev i de nc e dem o ns t r at e s t hatt he r e ar e no g e nui ne i ssues of

m ater i al fact an d the m ovi n g pa rt y i s enti t l ed to j u dg m en t as a m att er o f l aw. An i s s ue o f

m at e r i alfac t i s g e nui ne i f a r e as o nab l e j ur y c o ul d r e t ur n a 5
ve rd i ct f

or th e n on m ov a n t. 6 Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

San dstad , 3 0 9F .3 d a t 8 9 6
. 7 4 1 1 U .S
. 7 9 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ). 8 See TransWo rld Airlines, In c. v. Thu rston , 4 6 9U .S
. 1 1 1 , 1 2 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ). 9 Machinc hickv. P

B Power, In c. , 398 F.3d 345, 350 (5t h Cir. 2005) (quot ing San dstad , 10 3 0 9F .3 d a t 8 9 6).

Vaughn v. Edel , 91 8 F .2d 5 17, 521 (5th Cir. 1 990) (intern al quo tati on marks an d 11 citati ono mitt ed).

See Voge l v. Ven eman , 2 7 6F .3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 3( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 12 See Palaso ta v. Haggar Clot hing C o. , 3 4 2 F .3 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 13 4 In em pl oym en t d isc ri m i n ati on cases , a pl ai n t i f f m ay rel y on di rector ci rcum st an t i al evi den ce, or both. I f a pl ai n t i f

f rel i es on ci rcum st an t i alevi den ce, 7 th e b u r d e n -s h iftin g te s t ou tlin e d in McD on n el lD ougl as v. G ree n a ppl i e s . But 8 i f t h ere i s di rectevi den ce of em pl oym en t di scr i m i n ati on , t h e Mc D o nne l lD o ugl as t est i s i n ap pl i cabl e. I n such a case, the pl ai n t i f f m u st produ ce di rectevi den ce 9 th a t “ d i scrim i n a tory an i m u s p l a ye d a role i n th e d ecisi on at i ssu e.” D efen d a n ts 10
can rebut di rectevi den ce “ on l y by s h ow i n g by a prepon deran ce of t h e evi den ce th a t t h e y w o u ld h a v e a c te d a s th e y d id w ith o u t r e g a r d to th e p la in tiff ’ s [a g e ].” 11 Ja c k s o n a r g u e s t h a t P h e l p s ’ s p u r p o r t e d c o m m e n t t h a t h e wa s a n “ o l d, g r a y -h a ir e d fa r t” is d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f a g e d is c r im in a tio n . B u t s in c e J a c k s o n d id
n ot m ak e t h i s argum en t i n hi s r espon se t o su m m ary j u dg m en t b ef ore the di st ri ct court, he i s precl u ded f rom rai si n g i t on ap pea l
. M oreover, the com m en t i s not 12 di rectev i den ce of

d i scr i m i n ati on . A s w e w i l ldi scuss f u rt h er i n f

ra , Jac kso n has
n ot show n t h at t h e com m en t w as p roxi m ate i n ti m e to the ter m i n ati on or rel ated t o t h e em pl oym en t deci sion , a n d thu s t h e com m en t cann ot qu al i f y as di rect evi den ce. A ccor di n gl y, w e w i l l consi der Jack son’ s cl ai m un der t h e McD o n n ell

13 D o ugl as bu rden

- shi f t i n g an al ysi s. Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

Machinc hick , 3 9 8F .3 d a t 3 5 2
. 14 I d
. 15 Laxton v. Gap I

nc. , 3 3 3F .3 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 16 I d
. 17 Machinc hick , 3 9 8F .3 d a t 3 5 2
. 18 Laxton , 333 F.3dat578(quot ing Reeves v. SandersonPlumbin g Pro ds., In c. , 53 0 U S. 19 1 3 3 , 1 4 3( 2 0 0 0))
.

Berq uistv. W

ash. Mut . Bank , 50 0 F.3 d 344 , 34 9 (5 th Cir. 2 007) (intern al quo tati on 20 mark s an d citati ono mitt ed). 5 U n der t h e Mc D o nne l lD o ugl as a p p roa ch , a p l a i n ti ff m u st f i rst de m on strate a pri m a faci e case of a ge di scr i m i n ati on . T h e d efen da n t then h as the b u rden 14
o f a r t i c ul at i ng 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 r t e r m i nat i ng t he pl ai n t i f f
. I f t h e defen da n t m eet s t h i s burd en , t h e presum pti on of 15 di s c r i m i nat i o n di s s i pa t e s . Pl ai nt i f f t he n has the u l t i m at e b ur de n o f pr o vi ng 16 i n t en t i on al di scr i m i n ati on . Th u s on sum m ar y j u dg m en t , t h e pl ai n t i f f m u st 17 show t h at t h ere i s a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact regardi n g ei t h er ( 1) w h et h er d e fe n d a n t’s re a s o n w a s p r e te x tu a l o r (2 ) w h e th e r d e fe n d a n t’s re a s o n w a s o n ly
o n e re a so n for th e co n d u ct a n d a n o th e r m o tiv a tin g fac to r w a s p la in t if f’s protec t ed cha ract eri st i c. Apl ai nt i f f m ays h ow pret ext “ ei t h er t h rough evi den ce 18 of di sparate t reat m en t or by s h ow i n g t h at t h e em pl oyer’ s prof fered explana t i on is fa ls e o r ‘u n w o r t h y o f c r e d e n c e .’” 19 T o est abli sh a p ri m a faci e case of age dis cri m i n ati on , “ a plai n t i f f m u st sho w t hat ( 1) he w as di sc harge d; ( 2) he w as qual i f i ed f ort he pos i t i on; ( 3) he w as w ith in th e p r o te c te d cla s s a t t h e t i m e o f d is c h a r g e ; a n d (4 ) h e w a s e ith e r i)
r e pl ac e d b y s o m e o ne o ut s i de t he pr o t e c t e d c l as s , i i ) repl aced by s o m e o ne you n ger, or i i i ) ot h erw i se di scharged becau se of hi s age. ” Th e parti es do not

20 di spu t e t h at Jackson ha s al l eged a p ri m a faci e case of age dis cri m i n ati on si n ce Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

See 2 9U .S .C
. § 6 3 1 (a) (p ro te ctin gi n dividu als“wh o a reat le a st4 0yearso f a g e”). 21 See O’Con nor v. C

onso l. C oin Caterers Cor

p. , 51 7 U .S. 30 8, 3 12-1 3 (1 996) (explai nin g 22 thatrepl acem ent by som eone“subs tant ially younger” c a nbean indicat or of age di sc ri mi n a ti on).

Wa g gon er v . Cit y of Ga rlan d, 9 8 7F .2 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 5 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3 ). 23 6 h e w as t erm i n ated , q u a li f i ed, f ort y years or ol der ( an d thu s w i t h i n t h e cl ass protec t ed by t h e A D E A ) , an d repl aced by som eon e substanti al l y you n ger. 21 22 N o r do t he y di s put e t hatCal

- W e s t e r n ha s a r t i c ul at e d a l e gi t i m at e , no ndi sc r i m i nat or y r eas on f orhi s t er m i nat i on w i t h i t s expl anat i on t hat Jac kso n w as f i r ed f ors exualhar as sm ent
. The ques t i on i s w het her Jac kso n has s how n t hat t her e i s a ge nui ne i ss ue o f m at er i alfac t as t o w het her t hi s r eas on w as pr et ext ual
o r w he t he r a ge w as o t he r w i s e a fac t o r i n J ac ks o n’ s t e r m i nat i o n. Jac kso n ass er t s t hat t he evi denc e i n t he r ec or d c r eat es a fac t ual i ss ue as t o w he t he r Cal

- W e s t e r n’ s p rof fer e d r e as o n was pr e t e xt ual
. Sp e c i f i c al l y, he poi nt s t o : ( 1) hi s o w n s t at e m e nt s t hathe ha d no t m ad e s e xua l l y har as s i ng com m en t s; ( 2) P h el ps’ s pu rport ed st a tem en t t h at he w as an “ ol d, gray- h ai red far t , ” ( 3) e vi de nc e t hatCal

- W e s t e r n di d no t di s c i pl i ne y o ung e r e m pl o ye e s w ho
e nga ge d i n s i m i l arc o m m e nt ar y and / o r e m ai l s , a nd ( 4) a c o w o r ke r ’ s s t at e m e nt th a t sh e d i d n ot p erce i ve h i s all eg ed com m en ts as se xu a lh a ra ssm en t. Jack so n’ s se l f

- se r vi ng s t at em ent s t hat he di d not c om m i t s exual h a ra ssm en t a re i n su ff i ci en t to crea te a tri a b l e i ssu e of fact a s to w h e th e r C a lW es t er n’ s expl a nat i on i s fal se . I n ca se s i n w hi c h an em pl oye r di sc harge s an em p l oy ee ba sed on the com p l a i n t of a n oth er em p l oy ee , th e i ssu e i s n ot th e tru th
o r fal s i t y o f

t he a l l e ga t i o n, b ut “ w he t he r t he e m pl o ye r r e as o nab l y bel i e ve d t he
em pl oyee’ s a ll egati on an d acted on i t i n good fai t h
. ” C al

- W est ern w as faced 23
w i t h a m ul t i t ude of

ev i denc e t hat Jac kso n w as vi ol at i ng t he c om pany’ s se xual har as s m e nt po l i c y. The e vi de nc e ca m e f r o m se ve r alem pl o ye e s , bo t h m al e a nd fem al e, an d st em m ed f rom both an i n t erna lan d ex t erna li n vest i gati on of Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

See id. at11 66. (explainin g that, s in c e ba dfaith is th e i ssue, “ [t]o th e e xte nt that 24 Waggo ner’ s summaryj udg ment evidence r elates tohis innoc enceof the sexu al har assment ch a rge, it isirr el ev a nt”).

C f. Va is Ar ms, I

n c. v . Va is , 38 3F. 3 d 28 7 , 29 4(5thCir. 20 0 4) (c onclu di n gth a t se lf

25 serving stat ement s were insufficie nt to ove rcome summaryj udg ment, particul arlyw henfac ed with“overwh el mi n gevid ence” ino pp os itio n); Un ited States v. Lawren ce , 2 76 F
. 3d 193 , 19 7 (5thC ir. 2 001 ) (affirmi ng summary ju dgment for the plaintiff when defen dant ’s onlyevidence ino pp os itio nwa s hiso wn“ se lf -s ervin gall ega tion s”); BMG Mu sic v. Martin ez , 74F .3d 8 7, 9 1 (5thC ir. 1 996) (explaining t hat a “conclu sory , self-se rvingstat ement” b y defen dantwas in suff ic ie nt toc re a teatri ab lei ssu e of f a ct). Se eM a lacara v. Garber , 35 3 F .3d 3 93, 405(5th Cir. 2 003) (statingth at “[w]hen 26 evidence e xi sts inth e su mmary ju dgment re cord butth e n onmova ntfai ls evento refer to it in the respon se toth e motion for summary ju dgment, that evidence is not properly befo re the di strictc ourt”)
.

I d
. (quo ting Ragas v. Tenn . Gas Pipeline Co. , 1 3 6F .3 d 4 5 5 , 4 5 8( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8))
. 27 7 J a c k s o n ’s b e h a v io r . J a c k s o n h a s p r e s e n t e d n o e v id e n c e a s to w h y th e c o m p a n y ’s rel i an ce on t h e evi den ce agai n st hi m w a s in ba d fai t h
. H i s ow n concl u sory as se r t i on t hat he di d not be have i nappro p ri a tel y i s i r r el evant , s i nce he has p rov i d ed n o ev i d en ce t o sug ge st th a t C a l -W ester n ’ s d ecisi on to tru st t h e res u l ts of t he t w o i nves t i gat i ons , rat her than h i s s el f

- se r vi ng deni alof w r ongdoi ng, w as u n reasona bl e or i n bad fai t h
. Jack son’ s asser t i on of i n n ocence al on e does not 24
cr e at e a fac t ual i s s ue as t o t he fal s i t y o f Cal

- W e s t e r n’ s pr o f fe r e d reason for t e r mi n a t i n g h i m. 25 Jack son’ s asser t i on s t h at C al

- W est ern did not di sci pl i n e y o u n ger em pl oyees w h o eng aged i n si m i l ar b eh aviora n d that Jackson ’ s c ow orker st ated th a t his be h a vior d i d n ot am ou n t t o se xu a lh a ra ssm en t can n ot be u s e d to
e s t ab l i s h t r i ab l e i s s u es o f fac t s i nc e he di d no t m ak e t he s e a s s e r t i o ns i n t he di s t r i c t c o ur t o r r e fe r t o any e vi de nc e t o t hi s e f fe c t
. ( N o r do e s he r e fe r t o a ny 26
e v id e n c e o f th is n a tu r e in h is b r ie f to th is c o u r t.) W e h a v e e x p la in e d th a t “ R u le 5 6 d o e s n o t im p o s e u p o n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d u ty to s ift t h r o u g h th e re c o r d in
s e a r c h o f e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t a p a r ty ’ s o p p o s itio n to s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t.” 27 Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

Ph elpsa n d Sh ee ts h av e b oth de nie d th a t Ph elps ma desu chac om me nt, b u t si n cewe 28 do n ot make cre dibilitydete rmination s at the summaryj udg ment stage, th eir deni als are irrel ev ant
.

Rub inst ein v. Adm’rsof Tulan e Educ . F und , 21 8 F. 3d392, 400 -01 (5thC ir. 2 000) 29 (i nte rn al b rack et s an d qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed). We h av e expl ain ed th a t this circ u it ’sstrayr em a rk s doc trin e survivedth e Su pr em e 30 Court’s de cisio n in Re e v e sv . Sa n de rs o nPl u m b i n g P ro d u c ts, I

n c. , 530 U. S. 1 3 3( 2 0 0 0). See Aug uster v. Vermilion ParishSch. Bd
. , 249 F.3 d 400 , 405 (5th Cir. 200 1) (notin g that apostReevesdec is io nbywhichwe ar e b ou n d, Ru b instei n , 21 8 F .3d 3 92 (5thC ir. 2 000), interpre ted Reevesno t toov erruleth e strayr em a rk s doc trin e) ; cf
. Rus sell v. McKinn ey Hos p. Ven tu re , 23 5 F.3 d 21 9, 2 29 (5thC ir
. 2 00 0) (explainin g that we should view th e stray remarks do ctrin e “cautiou sly”aft er Reeves).

Ru b instei n , 21 8 F .3d at 4 01 ; se e alsoW ag gon er v . Cit y of Ga rlan d, 987F .2d 1 160 , 31 1 1 6 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ [A ] me re‘ strayr em a rk ’ isi n suff ic ie nt toe st ab li sha g e di sc ri mi n a ti on .”). 8 B eca u se J a ck son did n ot i d en ti fy an y su ch ev i d en c e in h is op p ositi on to
s um m ar y j udg m e nt , w e w i l lno t c o ns i de r hi s a r gum e nt i n t hi s r e ga r d. F i n al l y, w e t u rn to P h el ps’ s all eged com m en t
. In h i s deposi t i on , Jackson st ated t h at c ow orker D on n i e Sh eet s “ t ol d m e one d ay i n hi s of f i ce t h at [ P h el ps] had t o l d hi m t hathe w as g o i ng t o b e i n c har ge of al lt he pl ant s w he n t hato l d, g r a y -h a ir e d fa r t r e tir e d , m e a n in g m e .” J a c k s o n s a id th a t S h e e ts m a d e th is 28
c o m m e nt t o hi m “ a c o upl e of t i m e s , ” but he d i d no t di s c us s w he t he r Phe l ps m ad e t h e com m en t t o Sh eet s on m ore t h an one occasi on . Th e di st ri ct court concl u ded th a t P h elps’ s statem en t w a s a “stra y re m a rk
. ” W e h a v e e x p la in e d th a t c o m m e n ts a r e o n ly e v id e n c e o f d is c r im in a tio n if t h ey are “ 1) rel ated t o t h e prot ect ed cl ass of persons of

w h i ch th e p lai n t i f

f i s a m e m be r ; 2 ) pr o xi m at e i n t i m e t o t he c o m pl ai ne d- o f a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nt deci si on ; 3) m ad e by an indivi du al w i t h au t h ori t y over t h e em pl oym en t deci si on at i ss ue; and 4) rel at ed t o t he e m pl oym ent dec i si on ati ss ue. ” Com m ent s t hat 29 do n ot m eet these cri t eri a are con si dered “ st ray rem arks, ” an d st an di n g al on e, 30
a re ins u ff

i ci en t t o d efea t su m m a ry j u d gm en t. 31 Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 20411

See Aug uster , 24 9 F.3d at 405(holdin g that a comment maden early a year befo re the 32 a dver see mp lo y me nt de ci si on th a t a pp eare d u nre late d toth e de ci si onwa s astrayr em a rk); see also Pat el v. Midland

Mem’l Hosp. &Med . Ctr . , 298 F.3 d 333 , 344 (5th Cir. 200 2) (hol ding th at a c omment made two ormoreyears befo re the e m p lo ym en t dec isionatissu e, th at was u nre late d toth e de ci si on , wa s notevid enceo f di sc ri mi n a ti on); Wallace v. M et hod ist Hosp. S

ys. , 2 7 1 F .3 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) (st a ti n gth a t “wh er e co mme ntsarev a gu e a n d re mo tei ntim e th eyarei n suff

ic ie nt toe st ab li shdis crim in a ti on” (i nte rn al b rack et s an d qu ot a ti onmark s om itte d) ); R u b instei n , 21 8 F .3d at 4 01 (conc ludingth at comments were str ayremarks when plaintiff had fail ed tooffe r evidence that they were proximateinti me orrel ated to his failure tor ec eiv e ar ais e orap ro mo ti on). 9 W h i l e P h el ps’ s al l eged com m en t m eet s t h e f i rstan d thi rd cr i t eri a, J ac kson has pr o vi de d no e vi de nc e t hatt he c o m m e nt w as pr o xi m at e i n t i m e t o hi s f i r i ng or re l a ted to t h e em p l oy m en t d ecisi on a t issu e. Ja ck son m a i n tain s th a t Sh ee ts t o l d hi m o f Phel ps ’ s c o m m e nt o n a vi s i t t o M e m phi s i n t he s um m e r o f 2 00 6, b ut i t i s uncl earw hen Ph el ps ac t ual l y m ade t he c om m ent
. St i l l , ev en as sum i ng t hat t he c o m m e nt w as m ad e s o o n be f o r e She e t s r e po r t e d i t t o Ja c ks o n, i t w as m ad e abou t a y e ar bef

ore Jackson ’ s Jun e 200 7 ter m i n ati on . Th e com m en t app ears w ho l l y unr e l at e d t o J ac ks o n’ s t e r m i nat i o n, a nd Ja c ks o n has not pr e s e nt e d a ny evi den ce t o show ot h erw i se. T h i s c om m en t al on e, or i n com bi n ati on w i t h Jackson ’ s un corr oborated den i al of

an y sexu al h arassm en t , is insuff i ci en t to establ i sh a t ri able i ssue of fact as t o pret ext. Th e overw h el m i n g ev i den ce s h ow s t h at Jackson w as f i red f or 32 vi ol ati on of

C al

- W est ern’ s s exu al ha rassm en t pol i c y, a nd J ac ks o n’ s o nl y e vi de n ce t o t h e con t rary com es f rom h i s ow n asser t i on s. W i t h ou t m ore, w e si m pl y can n ot
con clu d e th at t h ere i s a t ri able i ssue of fact as t o w h et h er C al

- W est ern d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t J a c k s o n b a s e d o n a g e .
* * * B e c a u s e n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t e x is ts a s to J a c k s o n ’ s cla im unde r t he AD EA , w e AFF I RM t he di s t ri c t c o ur t ’ s g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nt f o r Cal

- W e s t e r n. Case: 09-20411 Document: 00511039668 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/02/2010