IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10148

CHASITY MEDLOCK, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ACE CASH EXPRESS, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-2616

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant, Chasity Medlock (“Medlock”), appeals the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Ace Cash Express, Inc. (“Ace”)

in this Title VII retaliation action. The issue on appeal is whether the district 

court was correct in concluding that Ace had a legitimate, non-retaliatory

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10148 Document: 00512819280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 14-10148

reason for terminating Medlock’s employment. We agree with the district 

court and AFFIRM.

I.

Medlock was employed by ACE from February 2005 until she was 

terminated for sexual harassment in August 2011. Medlock held the position 

of Supervisor in the back-end collections department at the time of her 

discharge. Medlock was one of 25 employees in the back-end collections 

department that Ace terminated from March 2011 through December 2011 for

policy violations including, but not limited to, neglect of duty, insubordination, 

falsification of records, inappropriate sexual conduct, and drug and alcohol use. 

Medlock was terminated after a report that she exposed her breasts to another 

department supervisor. After exhausting her administrative remedies,

Medlock filed a Title VII discrimination lawsuit based on race, sex and 

retaliation against Ace in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas, but the race discrimination claim was ultimately dismissed by joint 

stipulation of the parties. Ace then filed a motion for summary judgment as to 

Medlock’s remaining sex discrimination and retaliation claims, which the 

district court granted.

II.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence 

in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Royal v. CCC & R Tres 

Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is 

appropriate only “if 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.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine dispute of material fact means that ‘evidence 

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” 

Royal, 736 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted).

2

 Case: 14-10148 Document: 00512819280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 14-10148

III.

On appeal, Medlock fails to raise or argue the Title VII sex

discrimination claim. Thus we consider this issue abandoned. See Webb v. 

Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 257, n.2 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, we proceed to the retaliation claim. Medlock argues that 

she was fired because: (1) she encouraged two subordinate employees to report 

sexual harassment by Supervisor Harold Walker to Human Resources; and 

(2) she confronted Walker about one of those allegations. This court has held 

that the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework applies to Title VII 

retaliation claims. See Royal, 736 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted). McDonnell 

Douglas requires that:

(1) first, the employee must demonstrate a prima facie case of 

retaliation; (2) the burden then shifts to the employer, who must 

state a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the employment 

action; and (3) if that burden is satisfied, the burden then 

ultimately falls to the employee to establish that the employer’s 

stated reason is actually a pretext for unlawful retaliation.

Id. In order to demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation, Medlock must 

prove “(1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action 

occurred; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the 

adverse employment action.” Id. The district court, reviewing the evidence in 

a light most favorable to Medlock, assumed, arguendo, that Medlock 

established a prima facie case of retaliation. While Medlock’s termination was 

clearly an adverse employment action and, by opposing sexual harassment, 

Medlock was engaged in protected activity, the evidence does not clearly show 

that Medlock met the causation standard. 

“Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional 

principles of but-for causation, not the lessened causation test stated in 

§ 2000e–2(m).” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 

3

 Case: 14-10148 Document: 00512819280 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 14-10148

(2013). In order to show that retaliation was the “but-for” reason for her 

termination, Medlock would have to show that Ace was aware of her 

involvement in the protected activity. This court has held that “[i]f an 

employer is unaware of an employee’s protected conduct at the time of the 

adverse employment action, the employer plainly could not have retaliated 

against the employee based on that conduct.” Chaney v. New Orleans Pub. 

Facility Mgmt., Inc., 179 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). 

The decision to terminate Medlock was made by Elizabeth Lalli Reese, 

the Human Resources Director and Robert King, the Vice President of Loan 

Collections. Both Reese and King testified that they were unaware of 

Medlock’s involvement in opposing sexual harassment allegations against 

Walker. Medlock admittedly did not report the allegations against Walker to 

Human Resources or to either of her superiors. Further, the evidence does not 

show that any other employee reported these instances to Reese or King. 

Alternatively, Medlock attempts to impute Walker’s retaliatory animus to 

King using the cat’s paw theory of liability. See Haire v. Bd. of Supervisors of 

La. Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 366 n.11 (5th Cir. 2013) (citations 

omitted). The district court carefully analyzed this assertion and correctly 

concluded that even if this theory still applied to Title VII retaliation cases in 

light of Nassar’s heightened causation standard, Medlock did not meet the 

“but-for” causation standard. With no evidence that retaliation was the “butfor” cause of her discharge, Medlock does not establish a prima facie case of 

retaliation.

However, even assuming, arguendo, that Medlock established a prima 

facie case of retaliation, Ace met its burden to provide a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for Medlock’s termination. Both Reese and King testified 

that in addition to the stated reason for Medlock’s termination, they also relied 

on previous reports of inappropriate conduct by Medlock in making their 

4

 Case: 14-10148 Document: 00512819280 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 14-10148

decision. The burden then shifts back to Medlock to prove pretext. In order to 

show pretext for retaliation, Medlock asserts that Ace did not have a good faith 

belief in Walker’s report that she exposed her breasts. Medlock reasons that 

Ace did not conduct a proper investigation or that the investigation came to 

the wrong conclusion. While Medlock’s proffered evidence might lead a

reasonable person to agree that the investigation was deficient, the district 

court correctly concluded that evidence of an improper investigation does not 

establish a discriminatory motive. See Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA Inc., 413 

F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir. 2005). “Management does not have to make proper 

decisions, only non-discriminatory ones.” Id. (citing Little v. Republic Refining 

Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir. 1991)). Thus, a deficient investigation does not 

prove pretext for retaliation.

IV.

Accordingly, the district court prudently examined the issues and 

properly granted summary judgment for Ace. We AFFIRM.

5

 Case: 14-10148 Document: 00512819280 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/29/2014