UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ROBERT LOUIS BROWN, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

MARRIOTT HOTEL, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

No. 14-4139 

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00116-TC) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Robert Brown filed a claim against his former employer, Marriott 

Hotel Services, Inc., alleging employment discrimination related to his termination in 

2013. Appellant worked for Marriott as a part-time stocking clerk at one of its hotels 

but limited his work availability to Fridays to accommodate another full-time job. 

Appellant’s supervisor hired a friend from church who took over Appellant’s 

 *

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 12, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4139 Document: 01019429562 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 1 
2 

responsibilities. The supervisor told Appellant he would be called if he was needed. 

After three months without being requested to work, he was administratively 

terminated by Marriott’s payroll system. 

Appellant accuses Marriott of discrimination and cites to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on a person’s 

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, Appellant, who is black, never 

actually alleges he was terminated because of his race. He states the discrimination 

occurred when his supervisor failed to follow Marriott’s own hiring policy regarding 

conflicts of interest by hiring a friend from church. 

The district court found that Appellant’s allegations did not provide a basis for 

a federal employment discrimination claim against Marriott and dismissed it under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court also dismissed 

a motion to disqualify Marriott’s counsel for allegedly failing to share information 

about the case with high-level corporate officials because even if true, the allegations 

did not amount to a disqualifying ethical violation. 

After careful review of the record on appeal, we agree with the district court 

dismissal of the case under Rule 12(b)(6). Even though we construe Appellant’s 

submissions to this court liberally because he is a pro se litigant, see, e.g., Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), we cannot find among Appellant’s 

submissions anything but bare allegations about violations of internal Marriott hiring 

policies. Appellant mentions he is black and his replacement at Marriott was 

Chinese, but he makes no cognizable case of racial discrimination under federal law. 

Appellate Case: 14-4139 Document: 01019429562 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 2 
3 

See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973) (setting out 

the elements of a prima facie employment discrimination case under Title VII of the 

1964 Civil Rights Act). 

We also agree with the denial of Appellant’s motion to disqualify Marriott’s 

counsel. Appellant’s reasons for seeking to dismiss Marriott’s counsel appear to be 

that they attempted to have his claims dismissed and opposed his motions generally, 

as well as allegedly failing to inform corporate officials about Appellant’s grievances 

with his termination. Even if true, none of the actions Appellant alleges Marriott’s 

counsel took violate any ethical rules or justify disqualification from the case. 

After Appellant filed his initial appeal in this case, he filed two motions; one 

“to dismiss Appellee from case” and the other “to have all court filings by Appellee 

defendant lawyers thrown out.” These motions claim Appellant never received a 

copy of Marriott’s response brief and repeat his allegations of attorney misconduct. 

However, Marriott’s response brief includes a certificate of service stating a copy 

was sent to Appellant’s current mailing address and Appellant notably filed a reply 

brief. Appellant’s allegations of attorney misconduct have already been raised and 

addressed. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6) and the denial of Appellant’s motion to disqualify Marriott’s counsel. 

We also AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s “Motion for Court 

Appellate Case: 14-4139 Document: 01019429562 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 3 
4 

Hearing” as moot. We DENY Appellant’s motions “to dismiss Appellee from case” 

and “to have all court filings by Appellee defendant lawyers thrown out.” 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-4139 Document: 01019429562 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 4