Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11196

EF RA I N CE RV AN TE Z P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. K M G P S E R V IC E S C O M P A N YIN C

. 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 f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V

- 165

B ef ore W IE N E R , G A R Z A , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t E fr a in C e r v a n te z s u e d h is fo r m er em p l oy er D efen d a n tA p p e lle e K M G P S e r v i c e s C o m p a n y In c . (“K M G P ”), a lle g in gth a t it fir e d h im becau se of

hi s age, i n vi ol ati on of t h e A ge D i scr i m i n ati on i n E m pl oym en t A ctof 1967 ( “A D E A ” ) , 29 U

. S. C

. § 621 e ts e q. T h e d istr ict court gran t ed su m m ary j u d gm en t i n fa vo r of K M G P aft er co n cl u d i n g th a t C erv a n tez h a d fa i l ed to
e s t a b li s h a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a t e r ia l fa c t th a t w o u ld c a ll in t o q u e s t io n K M G P ’s l eg i ti m a te, n on d i scrim i n a tory rea son f or disch a rg e — th a t h i s com p u ter U ser ID United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 11196

KMGP i s a subsidiaryof Kinder Morgan, Inc. 1 2 an d p assw ord ha d been used t o acces s pornograp h i c w ebsi t es f rom on e of K M G P ’ s s h ared com pu t ers. H ol di n g t h at t h e d i st ri ctcou rtcor rect l y determ i n ed t h a t C e r v a n t e z h a d fa i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f ma t e r i a lfa c t , w e a f

f i r m. I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS U n til h e w a s fir e d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , C e r v a n te z h a d w o r k e d a s a f i e ld
o p e r a to r a t K M G P ’ s S c u r r y A r e a C a n y o n R e e f O il C o m p a n ie s (“S A C R O C ”) U n it oi lf i el d i n Scu rry C ou n t y, T exas. B egi n n i n g i n 197 5, C ervan t ez w orked f or
v a r i o u s o wn e r s a n d o p e r a t o r s a t t h e S AC RO C Un i t , a n d h e wa s h i r e d b y KMGP 1 in 2 0 0 0 w h e n it a c q u ir e d th e u n it. I n J une 2 00 0, Cer va nt e z a t t e nde d a K M G P ne w - hi r e o r i e nt at i o n du r i ng
w h i ch he received t h e com pa n y’ s pol i cy m an u alan d Infor m ati on Secu ri t y U ser P o lic y (“I S U P ”). T h e IS U P states in re l ev a n t pa rt: Vi o l at i o n of

t hi s po l i c y m ayr e s ul t i n di s c i pl i nar y ac t i o n, i nc l udi ng po s s i bl e t e r m i nat i o n, a nd/o r l e ga la c t i o n.

. . . . [ I ] ndec ent , pr ofa n e, ob scen e, i n ti m i d a ti ng, orunl aw f ulm at er i alm ay n ot be sent ordow n l oad ed by an y f orm o f e lec troni c m ean s or di s pl ay e d o n o r s t o r e d i n t he Com pa ny’ s c o m put e r s o rpr i nt e d.

. . . . S yst em U sers are r espon sibl e f or safegu ardi n g t h ei r passw ords f or each syst em . I n di vi du al passw ords shou l d n ot be pri n te d, st ored o n -lin e , o r g iv e n to o th e r s . S y s te m U s e r s a r e re s p o n s ib le fo r a ll t ran sact i on s m ad e usi n g t h ei r passw ords. C er vant ez s i gned an ac know l edgm entof K M G P’ s I SU P, c onf i r m i ng t hat h e “u n d e r s t[o o d ] th a t fa ilu r e to co m p ly w ith th is P o lic y m a y re s u lt in d is c ip lin a r y a c tio n , w h ic h m a y in c lu d e te r m in a tio n o f [h is ] e m p lo y m e n t.” K M G P al so m ai n t ai n s add i t i on alp o li ci es r el ati n g t o i t s em pl oyees’
c o mp u t e r u s a g e . F o r e x a mp l e , t h e p o l i c y t i t l e d “ T h e Wo r k p l a c e ” i n f o r ms em pl oyees t h at the “ Inter n et a n d ot h er com m u n i cat i on s system s are t o b e usedN o. 08- 11196

3 f or busi n ess pu rposes onl y. . . . I m proper u se of C o m p a n i es’com m u n i cat i on s e r v i c e s a n d e q u i p m e n t mayr e s u l t i n d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n u p t o a n d i n c l u d i ng te r m in a tio n .” K M G P provi des a sha red com pu t er i n t h e SA C R O C U n i t ’ s break room wh i c h c a n b e ac c e s s e d byt h e u n i t ’ s 2 0 0 e mp l o y e e s . B r i a n S p e n c e , a KMGP
em pl oye e c harge d w i t h ens uri ng t hat al lSA C R O C U ni t c om put er s r un prope r l y, t est i f i ed that i n N ovem ber 200 6 h e checked t h e break-r oom com pu t er f or possi bl e vi ruses. Sp en ce s ta t ed that he u n covered a l arge n u m ber of “ cooki es” i n di c at i ng t hat Cer va nt e z ’ s U s e r I D and pa s s w o r d had be e n us e d t o acces s porn ograp h i c w ebsi t es. Sp en ce t est i f i ed that he did not know C ervan t ez. M ary A n n L on g, t h e f orm er di rect or of

hu m an res ou rces f or K i n d er M or gan, Inc

. , then re c ei ved not i c e t hat C er vant ez ’ s U se r ID an d p as sw or d had be e n us e d t o a c c e s s po r no gr ap hi c w e bs i t e s f r o m a K M G P c o m put e r . Ac c o r di ng to L on g, sh e i n stru cted B ra d l ey L ew i s, th e h u m a n reso u rces rep rese n tati ve w i th
r e s p o n s ib ility o v e r a r e g io n t h a t in c lu d e s t h e S A C R O C U n it, to d e te r m in e , i n t er a lia , w h et h er C ervan t ez h ad been at w ork on A u gu st22 an d 23 , 200 6, t w o dates
o n w h ic h h is U s e r ID w a s u s e d to a c c e s s h u n d r e d s o f p r o h ib ite d w e b s ite s . L e w is cl ai m s t h at, as i n st ructed, he confi rm ed that C ervan t ez w orked on both d ates. Acc o r di ng t o K M G P, Le w i s r e c o m m e nde d t hatCer va nt e z b e te r m i nat e d a nd Longa gr e e d. In l ate N ovem ber 2 006 , L ew i s ad vi sed C ervan t ez t h at he w as bei n g f i red becau se hi s U ser ID a n d pa ssw ord h ad been used on A u gu st22 an d 23 t o acces s porn ograp h i c w ebsi t es, w h i ch C ervan t ez d en i es h aving vi si t ed. Lew i s posses sed a l og detai l i n g t h e w ebsi t es al l eged l y vi si t ed, bu t , at t h at t i m e, he p rohi bi t ed C e r v a n te z fr o m s e e in git. K M G P r e pl ac e d C e r va nt e z w i t h P aulN av ar e t e , w ho w as 4 3 ye ar s o l d a nd h ad been em pl oyed at K M G P forfi ve t o si x m on t h s. C ervan t ez, w h o w as t h enN o. 08- 11196

C erv a nte zc on stru esth e re co rda s e st abli shin gth at Sp encec once de d th at KMGP 2 “m a nu ally ,”i .e ., arb itrarily , a dd edC erv a nte z ’sn a met o th e li st
. I nf a ct , th e re co rdc onfirm s that Spe nce merelyu sed th e word “manu ally” in the cont ext of instructin g software to print the us er’ s nam e, th at of Cervante z, on the log.

4 5 7 y e a rs old, of

fered no i n i t i ali n di cat i on t h at he bel i eved he w as di scharged b e c a u s e o f h is a g e . C er vant ez appl i ed f orunem pl oym entc om p en sa t i on f r om t he Texas W or kf or c e C om m i ss i on ( “ TW C ” )

. D uri ng t he T W C pr oc ee di ngs, C er vant ez had
a cces s f or th e fi rst ti m e to th e log of w eb sit es a l l eg ed l y v i sit ed w i th h i s U ser ID
a n d pa ssw ord

. A ccord i n g to C erv a n tez, i n ad d i ti on to sh ow i n g a cces s to i nap pr o pr i at e w e bs i t e s at t i m e s w he n he w as at w o r k o n Augus t 2 2 and 2 3, t he l og i ncl udes m any ent r i es f ort he eve ni ng of

A ugust23, l ong af

t erhi s shi f

t had
e nde d. As t he i ni t i al l o g di d no t c o nt ai n Cer va nt e z ’ s na m e o r o t he r i de nt i f yi ng i n form a ti on , the T W C h ea ri n g o ff ic e r r e q u ested the pr od u cti on of d ocu m en ts t h a t wo u l d a s s o c i a t e C e r v a n t e z ’ s Us e r I D a n d p a s s wo r d wi t h t h e l o g . K M GP t h u s produ ced a second, m ore c om preh en si ve l og t h at s peci f i cal l y i den t i f

i ed C e rv a n te z . Th e sec on d l og show ed att em pts t o acces s prohi bi t ed w ebsi t es on

2
m any ot her dat es , i ncl udi ng dat es w hen C er vant ez di d notw or k. Even t hough both l ogs contai n i n f

orm ati on abou t t i m es w h en C ervan t ez w as not at w ork, t h ey a l so li st w eb sit es th a t w ere acce sse d w h en h e w a s p rese n t. I n Augus t 2 00 7, Cer va nt e z f i l e d t he i ns t antsui t i n di s t r i c t co ur t , a l l e gi ng th a t K M G P h a d f

i red h i m be ca u se o f h i s ag e in v i olati on of th e A D E A

. In D ecem ber 200 8, t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed K M G P ’ s m otion forsum m ary j udg m e nt
. Thi s a ppe alf o l l o w e d.N o. 08- 11196

Alaska Elec. Pension Fu nd v. F lowserve Cor

p. , 572 F.3 d 221 , 227 (5thC ir. 2 009) (per 3 curi a m). Ther macor P rocess, L .P. v. B

ASF C orp. , 567 F.3 d 736 , 740 (5th Cir. 2009) (per 4 curiam) (qu oti ng F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c))

. Deville v. Marcan te l , 5 6 7F .3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 3

– 6 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9) (p erc u ri a m). 5 2 9U .S .C

. § 6 2 3 (a). 6 G ros s v. FBL Fin . Servs., I nc. , 1 2 9 S

. C t
. 2 3 4 3 , 2 3 5 1 ( 2 0 0 9)

. Th e S u p r e me C ourt ’s 7 recent decisionin Grossrej ected the application of Titl e VI I’ s “motivating factor” standard to ADEA mixed -mo tiv e ca se s. Seei d

. at 234 9–5 1. Th at hol ding h as no affect on today’s analysis beca use , on app eal, Cervante z did notadvancea motivat ing-f act or the ory. San dstad v. C

B Ri c ha r d Ellis, In c. , 30 9 F .3d 8 93, 896–97(5th Cir. 2 002 ) (citing 8 McDonne ll Douglas C orp. v. Green , 4 1 1 U .S

. 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 ( 1 9 7 3)) ; see C heatham v. AllstateI

ns. Co. , 46 5 F .3d 5 78, 582(5th Cir. 200 6) (per curi am) (referrin g to this circuit’s bur den-shiftin g s t a n d ar d f

o r AD EA c l ai m s a s “w e ll

- s e ttl e d” ). Bu t s e eGross , 12 9 S . C t. at 2 349n .2 (“[T]he C ourth a s notd ef

initivelyd ecid edwh eth erth e evid entiary fr a me wo rko f McDo n n el l 5 II. A N A L Y S IS A . St andard of

R evi ew W e r e v i e w d e novo a distri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a r y j u d gm en t. 3

“ Su m m ar y j udgm ent i s appro pri at e i f t he rec or d, take n as a w hol e, ‘ sho w [ s] t hat t h ere i s n o gen u i n e i ssue as t o an y m ater i alfact an d that t h e m ovan t i s enti t l ed t o j u dg m e nt a s a m at t e r o f l aw. ’ ” “ O n a m o t i o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he 4
cou rt m u st view the fa cts i n the l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e n on -m ov i n g p a rty
a n d d r a w a ll re a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s in its fa v o r .” 5 B . A D E A F ram ew ork U n der t h e A D E A , i t i s un l aw f u lf or an em pl oyer t o di scharge an em pl oyee “b e ca u se of su ch in d ivid u a l’ s a g e .” T o es ta b li sh a n A D E Acla im , “[a ] p la in tiff 6
m u stprove by a p repon deran ce of t h e evi den ce (w h i ch m ay be d i rector circ u m st an t i al) , t h at age w as t h e ‘bu t

- f or’cause of

t h e chal l en ged em pl oyer d e c is io n .” 7 As Ce r va nt ez’ s A D EA c l ai m i s b as e d o n c i r c um s t ant i ale vi de nc e , t he b u r d e n -s h if

t in gfr a m e w o rk of McDo n n e l lDo ug la s Co r p . v . G r e e n ap pl i es. U n der 8N o. 08- 11196

Douglas

. . . , utili z edinTitleVI Ic a se s i s app ro priateinth e ADEA c onte xt. ”)

. Reeves v. SandersonPlumbin g Pro ds., In c. , 5 3 0U .S

. 1 3 3 , 1 4 2 ( 2 0 0 0). 9 San dstad , 3 0 9F .3d at 8 9 7 ; see 29 U.S.C. § 6 31 (applying th e ADEA only to 10 in dividu alsat le a stf

ortyyearso ld). Reeves , 5 3 0U .S

. at 1 4 2 (inte rn al qu ot atio n m arksan d citationo mitt ed); see 11 San dstad , 30 9 F .3d at 8 97.

Reeves , 5 3 0U .S

. at 1 4 2

–4 3(inte rn al qu ot ationmark s an d citationo mitt ed). 12 I d

. at 1 4 3(inte rn al qu ot ationmark s an d citation s o mitt ed); see Sandstad , 30 9 F .3d 13 at 897
. 6 t h i s s t an da rd, t h e em pl oyee m u stf i rstest abli sh a p ri m a faci e case of di sc r i m i nat i on. A pri m a fac i e cas e re qui r es thatthe em pl oye e pro ve t hat he ( 1) 9 bel on gs t o t h e p rot ect ed group of persons over t h e age of f ort y; ( 2) w as qu al i f

i ed f or hi s posi t i on ; ( 3) w as d i scharged ; a n d ( 4) w as rep l aced w i t h som eon e you n ger o r o ut s i de t he pr o t e c t e d g r o up. 10 The bur de n t he n sh i f t s t o t he e m pl o ye r t o pr o duc e e vi de nc e t hatt he
e m p lo y e e w a s d is c h a r g e d “fo r a le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to r y re a s o n . T h is b u rd en i s on e of

p r o d u c tion , n ot p ersu a sion ; i t can i n vo l ve n o cre d i b i l i ty
assessm en t
. ” I f

t h e em p loy e r is able t o m eet t h i s burd en , “ t h e McD o n n ell 11 D o uglas f

r am e w o r k — w i t h i t s pr e s um pt i o ns a nd b ur de ns — di s ap pe ar [ s ] , a nd t he s o l e r e m ai ni ng i s s ue [ i s ] di s c r i m i nat i o n velnon .” 12 [ T] he ul t i m at e b ur de n o f pe r s uad i ng t he tri er o f fac t t hatt he de fe nda nt i nt e nt i o nal l y di s c r i m i nat e d a ga i ns t t he pl ai nt i f f r e m ai ns a t a ll tim e s w ith th e p la in tiff

. A n d in a tt e m p tin gto s a tis fy th is bur de n , t h e p l a i n t i f f — o n c e t h e e m p l o y e r p r o d u c e s s u f f i c i e nt evi den ce to sup port a n on di scr i m i n ator y exp l an ati on f or i t s deci si on

— m u stbe af

f orded t h e opp ort u n i t y t o prove by a p repon deran ce of t he e vi de nc e t hatt he l e gi t i m at e r e as o ns o f fe r e d by t he de fe nda nt w e r e no t i t s t r ue r e as o ns , but w e r e a pr e t e xt for di s c r i m i nat i o n. That i s, the pl ai nt i f f m aya t t e m ptt o e s t ab l i s h t hathe w as t he v ic t im o f i n t e n t io n a l d is c r im in a t io n b y s h o w in gth a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s prof fered explana t i on i s un w ort h y of cr eden ce. 13N o. 08- 11196

San dstad , 30 9 F .3d at 8 99; see Mayberr y v. VoughtAircraftC o. , 55 F .3d 1 086 , 10 91 14 (5thC ir. 1 995) (“The que stionis not wheth er an employer ma de an erron eou s deci sion; it is wh eth erth e de ci si onwa s m a dewithdis crim in ato rymo tiv e. ”)

.

Mayb erry , 55 F. 3d at 1091 (qu oti ng Lit tle v. Repu blic Ref. C o. , 924 F.2 d 93 , 97(5th 15 C ir . 1 9 9 1 )) ; s e e B ienkowski v. Am. Airlin es, I nc. , 85 1 F .2d 1 503 , 15 08 (5thC ir. 1 988) (“The ADEA c a n n otp rote ct ol de r em pl oyee s from erro n eo u s or even arb itrary pe rs onn eld ecis io n s, butonlyfrom decisions whichar e u nlawfullymotivated. Even if th e trier of fact chose to believe an employee’s assessment of his pe rformance r ath er thanth e e mployer’s, thatchoice alonewoul d not le a dt oac o n c lus ion thatthe emp loyer ’s versi on is a pre textfor age di sc ri mi n ation .”(citationo mitt ed))

.

San dstad , 309 F.3dat 897 (cit ing Reeves , 5 3 0U .S

. at 1 4 7

–4 8). 16 See Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co. , 462 F.3d925, 935 (8t h Cir. 2006) (“[V]io lati ng a 17 co mp a nyp olicyi s a le gitim ate , n on -dis crim in ato ryr ation alef ort er mi n atin gane mp loy ee .”). 7 “T h e is s u e a t t h e p r e te x t s ta g e is w h e th e r [th e d e fe n d a n t’s ] r e a s o n , e v e n if i n corr ect , w as t h e realreason f or [ t h e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s] t erm i n ati on . ” C ou rt s “ ‘ do n ot 14 t r y . . . t he val i di t y of goo d fai t h bel i efs as t o an em pl oye e’ s c om pet enc e. M ot i ve is th e is s u e .’” 15 [Y e t ,] [e ]v id e n c e d e m o n s t r a t in gth e fa ls it y o f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s exp l an ati on . . . i s l i kely t o sup port an i n ference of di scr i m i n ati on e ve n wi t ho ut f

ur t he r e vi de nc e o f

de fe nda nt ’ s t r ue m o t i ve . Thus , t he pl ai nt i f f c an sur vi ve sum m ar y j udgm ent by pro duci ng evi denc e t hat creat es a j u ry is su e as t o t h e em pl oyer’ s di scr i m i n ator y an i m u s or t h e fal si t y of

t h e em pl oyer’ s l egi t i m ate non di scr i m i n ator y e xp l ana t i o n. 16 C . C ervan t ez F ai l ed t o E st ab l i sh a G en u i n e I ss u e of M ater i al F act K M G P c o nc e de s t hatC e r va nt e z has se t fo r t h a pr i m a fac i e c as e und e r t he McD on n el lD ougl as f r am e w o r k. W e t he r e f o r e b e gi n o ura nal ys i s b y o bs e r vi ng t h at K M G P ’ s prof

fered reason f

or f i ri n g C ervan t ez — vi ol ati on of i t s c om pu t eru s e p o li c y — c o n s t it u t e s a l e g it im a t e , n o n d is c r im in a t o r y r e a s o n fo r C e r v a n t e z ’s di scharge. Th e McD on n el lD ougl as b u r d e n - s h i f t i n gt h u s e v a p o r a t e s , a n d we 17 i n qu i re w h et h er C ervan t ez ha s s h ow n t h e ex iste n ce of a gen u i n e i ssue of
m a te rial fact on ag e di scr i m i n ati on . C ervan t ez asser t s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt
e r r e d i n t hr e e w ay s : ( 1) I t s de c i s i o n s t r ay e d f r o m b i ndi ng pr e c e de ntb y ap pl yi ngN o. 08- 11196

Ra t liff v . Cit y of Ga in es vi lle , 256 F.3d355 , 361 & n.9 (5t h Cir

. 2001) (quot ing Reeves , 18 5 3 0U .S

. at 1 4 8).

Kani da v. Gul

f Coas t Med. Pers. LP, 3 6 3F .3 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 4&n .4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 4). 19 407 F.3d 332, 345 (5th Cir. 2005) (c itin g Reeves , 5 3 0U .S

. at 1 4 3). 20 8 an er r oneo usl y hi gh burde n of pr oo f; ( 2) i t fai l ed t o r ec ogni ze an i ss ue o f m at er i al fac t a m o ng K M G P’ s a l l e ge d i nc o ns i s t e nc i e s ; and ( 3) i t i m pr o pe r l y di s c o unt e d t he si gn i f i can ce of

a K M G P m an ager’ s di scr i m i n ator y com m en t
. W e rej ecteach of C ervan t ez’ s poi n t s of error an d det erm i n e, i n our de no vo re v ie w , th a t K M G P is
en ti tl ed to su m m a ry j u d gm en t. F ir s t , t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t a p p li e d th e c o r r e c t la w . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s de c i s i o n i n R e e v e s v . S a n d e r s o n P lu m b ingP r o d u c ts , In c . m a k e s c l e a r th a t “‘a pl ai nt i f f ’ s pr i m a fac i e c as e , c o m bi ne d wi t h suf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o f

i nd t hatt he
e m pl o ye r ’ s as s e r t e d j us t i f i c at i o n i s fal s e , m ayper m i t t he t r i e r o f fac t t o c o nc l ude th a t th e em p l oy er u n l a w full y d i scrim i n a ted

. ’ ” C erv a n tez is corre ct t h a t R eeve s 18 rej ect ed the h i gh er s t an da rd of “ pretextpl u s, ” w h i ch “r equ i re[ d] a pl ai n t i f f not
on l y t o di sprove an em pl oyer’ s prof fered reasons f

or t h e di scr i m i n ati on bu t al so t o i n t rodu ce add i t i on alevi den ce of di scr i m i n ati on . ” R evi ew of th e di st ri ct 19
c o u r t ’s o p in io n a n d o f t h e e n t ir e r e c o r d m a k e s c le a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t th e c o u r t ’s h oldin g w a s a p rod u ct of the l a w as itstan d s p ost- R eeve s . Fo r e xa m pl e t he d i stri c t c our t appl i ed v al i d l aw i n det er m i ni ng t hat C er vant ez “ has fai l ed t o com e f orw ard w i t h sum m ary j u dg m en t ev id e n ce t o cr eate a genu i n e i ssue of
m ater ia l fa ct that D efen da n t ’ s ‘ st ated groun ds f or hi s t erm i n ati on w ere
unw o r t hy o f

c r e de nc e . ’ ” ( quo t i ng o uro pi ni o n i n K eelan v. Maj esc o S of t w are, Inc. )

. I n an y even t , w e app l y t h e cor rectst an da rd in t oda y’ s de no vo r e v i e w.

20 A dd i t i on al l y, w e em ph asi ze — con t rary to C ervan t ez’ s argu m en t — t h at a f i redN o. 08- 11196

See Wag go ner v. Cityof Garland , 9 8 7F .2 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3). 21 Palaso ta v. Haggar Clot hing C o. , 3 4 2 F .3 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 8( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3) (p erc u ri a m) 22 (c it ation s an d fo otn ot e om itte d)

. 9 e m pl o ye e ’ s a c t uali nno c e nc e o f hi s e m pl o ye r ’ s pr o f

fe r e d a c c us at i o n i s i r r e l e va nt
as l o ng as t he e m pl o ye r r e as o nab l y be l i e ve d i t a nd a c t e d o n i t i n g o o d fai t h. 21 S econd , K M G P ’ s p u rport ed i n consi st en ci es, consi dered i n t ot o, do n ot creat e a g en u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact
. B ri ef l y, ( 1) t h e m ere exi st en ce of KM GP’ s s e c o nd , m o r e c o m p r e he ns i v e l o g— whi c h i t p r o d uc e d f o r t he TW C proceedi n gs m on t h s aft er C ervan t ez’ s di scharge — does not es t abli sh a d i spu t ed
m a te r ia l fa c t r e g a r d in gt h e tr u th o r fa ls ity o f K M G P ’ s s ta te d g r o u n d fo r th is f i ri n g; ( 2) i t i s not si gn i f i can t w i t h w h om L ew i s confi rm ed C ervan t ez’ s presence at t he SA C R O C U ni t on Au gust22 o r 23, or eve n w het her Lew i s c onf i r m ed i t at al l ; ( 3) c o ns i de r i ng t hatLe w i s t o l d Ce r va nt e z t hathe w as b e i ng di s cha rged becau se hi s U ser ID an d p assw ord ha d been used to a cc ess proh i bi t ed
w ebsi te s — th e sam e reason K M G P adv an ced i n t h e di st ri ctcourtan d on ap pe al

— Lewi s ’ s s t at e m e nt t hat he t ho ugh t Cer va nt e z had ac c essed t he proh i bi t ed w ebsi t es personal l y i s i m m ater i al ; an d ( 4) i t i s n ot m ater i alw h et h er L ew i s act u al l y m ad e t h e f i n aldeci si on t o f

i re C ervan t ez or L on g m ad e i t based
o n Le w i s ’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o n. Thi r d , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o mm i t t e d n o e r r o r i n d i s r e g a r d i n ga KMGP
m anager ’ s al l ege dl y di sc r i m i nat or y c om m entas a st r ay re m ar k ( i f i ndeed, i t w as e ve n di s c r i m i nat o r y)

. Ac c o r di ng t o Cer va nt e z , i n 2 00 2 o r 2 00 3, hi s t he nsup ervi sor, G ary N orw ood, told hi m t h at a m em ber of K M G P ’ s “ t op
m anagem ent , ” Pet e H agi st , had s ai d t hat K M G P w oul d be expandi ng and “ w as go i ng t o start h i ri ng yo ungpe o pl e . ” I t i s t r ue t hata di s c r i m i nat o r y c o m m e nt
m ay be pr obat i ve of

di sc r i m i nat i on “ eve n w her e [ i t ] i s noti n t he di r ec t c ont ext of th e t erm i n ati on an d even i f utt ered by on e ot h er t h an t h e f orm aldeci si on
m a k e r , p r o v id e d t h a t th e in d iv id u a l is in a p o s itio n to in flu e n c e th e d e c is io n .” 22N o. 08- 11196

Id

. at57 7. 23 Jenkinsv. Method ist Hosps. of Dallas, I nc. , 4 7 8F .3 d 2 5 5 , 2 6 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 24 See Patel v. Midland Mem’l Hosp. &Med. Ctr
. , 2 9 8F

. 3 d3 3 3 , 3 4 4( 5 thC ir . 20 02) 25 (r ej ectin gc om ments m a detwoo r mo reyearsb ef or e adocto r’ s s u sp en si on); Brow n v. CSC Logi c, Inc. , 82F .3d 6 51, 656(5th Cir. 1 996) (disco unting a comment made sixt eenmonths b ef or e a ne mp loy ee ’sdis ch arge)

. See Palas ota , 34 2 F .3d at 5 78. 26 See id. at57 7. Iti s e ve n uncl ear wheth er the substance of th e alle ge d re mark 27 supports Cervantez ’s cl aim. A plan to expand the SAC ROC Unitan d to hir e youn g peopl e i s no tn ecessarilyan alo go us toa plantoreplaceol der peopl e withyoun ge r pe rsonn el. Cervantez ’s th eoryn eve r t he less alle ge s discri minatoryfiring with out mentioning dis cri mi nato ry expans ionisthirin g . 10 Y et, a co m m en t i s n ot ev i d en ce of d i scrim i n a ti on i f i t i s th e so l e p roo f of pre tex t, 23
o r i f i t i s notm ad e i n t e m po r alpr o xi m i t y t o t he a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e ntde c i s i o n. 24 Th er e a r e a t l eas t th ree r eas ons w hy H agi st ’ s al l ege d c om m entfai l s t o de feat K M G P ’ s m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t : ( 1) T h e passage of th re e to f ou r years b e t we e n t h e c o mme n t a n d C e r v a n t e z ’ s d i s c h a r g e i s b e y o n d t h e t i me f r a me relev a n t t o h i s cl a i m ; ( 2 ) n o reas on a b l e f a ctf i n d er cou l d de term i n e th a t H a gist, 25
w h o lef t K M G P ei gh t een m on t h s bef ore C ervan t ez’ s di scharge, w as “ i n a posi t i on t o i n f l u en ce t h e deci si on ” t o ter m in a te him ; an d ( 3) as t h e o n ly evi den ce of 26 p retex t, H a gist’ s stray rem a rk i s n ot p rob a ti ve of d i scrim i n a tory i n ten t. 27 I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e af f i rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of K M G P be c aus e Cer va nt e z fai l e d t o de m o ns t r at e t he pr e s e nc e o f a di s put e d i s s ue of m a terialfa ct. AF F I RMED.