Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e C ourth as determin ed th at this opinionshould * not be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40487 Su m m ar y Cal endar

ALLEN BI SHO P, P l a i n ti ff

–A p p ell a n t v. T E XA R KA N AT E XA S P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T , 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 ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C V

- 00141

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * A l l en B i shop , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l an t , app eal s t h e di st rict cou rt ’ s grant of
sum m ary j u dg m en tf or D efen da n t–A pp el l ee, T exark a n a T exas P ol i ce D e pa r t m en t (“ TTP D ” ) , a s t o Bi s ho p’ s c l ai m s f o ra ge di s c r i m i nat i o n und e rt he Ag e Di s c r i m i na t i o n i n Em p l o y m e nt Ac t o f 1 9 6 7 , 2 9 U
. S. C

. § 621 etse q . (t he

“A D E A ” ) , and r ac e di sc r i m i nat i on underTi t l e VII of the C i vi lR i ght s A c tof 1964, 42 U
. S

. C

. § 2000 e etse q . ( “ T i t l e V II ” )

. B ecau se B i shop fai l ed t o carry h i s burd en United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 25, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40487 Document: 00511062494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 40487

2 und erei t hert he A D E AorTi t l e VII , w e AF FIR M t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s r ul i ng.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND B i shop , a for t y- year- ol d A f ri can - A m eri can m al e, a pp l i ed f or an en t ry l evel pol i ce of

f i cer posi t i on i n t h e T T P D
. B i shop passed both the ci vi lser vi ce ex a m i n a ti on an d ph ys i ca l fi tn ess a sse ssm en t. T T P D ask ed B i sh op to com p l ete
a Pe r so na lH i s t o r ySt a t e m e nta nds ub m i tc e r t a i n d o c um e nt s t o e na b l e TTP D i nves t i gat or s t o c onducta ba c kgr ound i nves t i gat i on. B i sh op pr ovi ded an i nco m pl et e Per so nalH i st or y S t at em entand fai l ed t o s ubm i thi s Form D D

- 214,
w h i ch w ou l d h ave sh ow n t h e ci rcum st an ces surroun d ing h i s di scharge f rom m i l i t ary s e rv ice
. O n hi s Person alH i st ory Statem en t , B i shop st ated he served i n t he U ni t ed St at es A r m y R es er ves f r om January 1991 t hro ugh Ja nuary 19 99
an d w as h on orabl y di scharged
. H e di d not m en t i on an y ot h er m i l i t ary servi ce. T T P D rul es r equ i re f orm er m em bers of t h e m i l i t ary t o h ave nothi n g l ess t han an ho no r ab l e di s c har ge . Dur i ng an i n t ervi ew w i t h a TTPD b ac kg r o und i nvest i gat o r , Bi s ho p s ai d he w as unc e r t ai n o f hi s m i l i t ar y di s c har ge s t at us bec ause of

an i ss ue rel at i ng t o deni alof h i s r eques tto tr ansf erf r om one r es er ve u n i tt o an ot h er. B i shop st ated h e b e li e v e d h e ha d been pl aced on “ i n act i ve” st at us. TT PD su b seq u en t l y r ec eived t he A r m y’ s Form D D

- 214 s how i ng t hat Bi s h o p e n t e r e d s e r v i c e i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 1 , s e p a r a t e d i n M a r c h 19 92 , a nd
r e c e i v e d a n “ u n c h a r a c t e r i z e d ” d i s c h a r g e . T T P D a l s o r e c e i v e d a n o t h e r F o r m DD214, l ear ni ng f

or t he f i r st t i m e t hat B i sho p had bee n i n t he U ni t ed St at es N avy f orabo u t a m on t h and a hal f i n 1986; t he N avy de sc r ibed Bi sho p’ s di sc harge
s t at us a s a n “ e nt r y l e ve ls e pa r at i o n. ” TTP D s e ntBi s ho p t w o l e t t e r s e xp l ai ni ng h e w a s a u tom a ti ca l l y disqu a l i fi ed from con sider a tio n d u e to h is “u n c h a r a c te r iz e d ” d is c h a r g e fr o m th e A r m yR e s e r v e s . Bi s ho p f

i l e d a Char ge o f

D i s c r i m i nat i o n wi t h t he EE O C a n d recei veda r i ghtt o sue l e t t e r . Bi s ho p t i m e l y f i l e d hi s C o m pl ai nt , ra i s i ng c l ai m s of ra c e a nd age d i scr i m i n ati on . TT P D m oved f or sum m ary j u dg m en t , an d the di st ri ctcourt Case: 09-40487 Document: 00511062494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 40487

3 g r a n te d th e m o tio n . B is h o p tim e lya p p e a le d
. II. A N A L Y S IS W e rev i ew the distri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t d e novo . T ex. Ind u s. , I

n c. v. F act ory Mu t
. I

n s. Co. , 486 F
. 3d 8 44, 8 46 ( 5th C i r. 2 007 )

. Su m m ary j udg m e nti s pr o pe rw he n “ t he r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue as t o any m at e r i alfac ta nd

. . . the m ov a n t is e n tit le d to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c)(2 ). To pre vai lon hi s Ti t l e V I I c l ai m , B i sho p m ustes t abl i sh a p rim afa cie case th a t T T P D b a s e d its d e c is io n n o t t o h ir e h im o n h is ra c e . Pa t r i ck v . R i dge , 394 F. 3d3 11 , 3 13 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) ( c i t i ngMcD on n el lD ougl as Corp. v. G ree n , 4 11 U
. S. 792 , 802 ( 197 3) )

. To d o so, B i shop m u st show t h at ( 1) he i s a m em ber of a cl ass pro t ec t ed undert he s t at ut e; ( 2) he w as qual i f i ed f ort he pol i c e of

f i c erposi t i on; ( 3) TTP D t o o k a n a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nta c t i o n a ga i ns thi m ; a nd ( 4) s o m e o ne o ut s i de
o f th e p r o te c te d c la s s w a s h ir e d in s te a d
. Id
. ( c i t i ng McD o nne l lD o uglas Cor p. , 411 U
. S

. at 802 )

. T o preva i l on h i s A D E A cl ai m , B i shop bears a si m i l ar bu rden of es t abl i shi ng a p rim afa cie case t h at T T P D based i t s deci si on n ot t o h i re h i m on hi s age, by sho w i ng t hat( 1) an adve r se em pl oym entac t i on o c c urr ed; ( 2) he w as qu al i f i ed f or t h e pol i ce of

f i cer posi t i on ; ( 3) he w as a m em ber of a prot ect ed cl ass unde rt he s t at ut e ; a nd ( 4) he was r e pl ac e d b y s o m e o ne e i t he ry o ung e ro ro ut s i de
o f th e p r o te c te d cla s s . B od enh ei m er v. PP G I n d u s. , I n c. , 5 F
. 3d 955 , 957 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ).A f

t er the pl ai n t i f

f establ i shes h i s p rim afa cie c as e , t he bur de n s hi f t s t o t he defenda n tt o art i cul ate a l egi t i m ate, non - di scr i m i n ator y reason f or i t s adverse
e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n . R ach i dv. Ja ck I n T h e B ox, I

n c. , 376 F. 3d 305, 312 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. I f

t he de fe nda ntm e e t s t hi s bu rden , t he b ur de n s hi f t s b ac k t o t he pl ai nt i f f t o s ho w t hat( 1) t he def e nda nt ’ s pr o f

fe r e d r e as o n i s notonl y unt r ue , b ut i s pr e t e xt ual ; o r( 2) t he def e nda nt ’ s pr o f

fe r e d r e as o n i s t r ue , b uti s o nl y o ne o f t he
rea son s, w i th the pr otected ch a ra cterist i c be i n g a “m oti va ti n g factor

. ” Id
. Case: 09-40487 Document: 00511062494 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 40487

Bisho p al so argu es th at TTPD refused to hire him because of his credit score, 1 because he file d anunrel ated lawsuit, and because TTPD u ses a quota system and will not hire a nymoreAfric a n -Ame ricanapp licantsuntil 2 0 1 3
. As f orBis h op ’sf

ir sttwo arguments, Bisho p failed to produceany evidence showing th at TTPD refused to hire him because of his credit score or b ecau se h e filed an unrelated l awsuit. As for the thir d argument, Bisho p provi des littlemoreth an a c onspiracyth eoryto support this argument, and he fail s to estab lisha prima facie cas eof di scri min ationb a se d onall egedqu ot a s. 4 ( c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. Fi nal l y, i f t he pl ai nt i f

f s uc c e e ds , t he b ur de n s hi f t s b ac k t o t he de fe nda ntt o pr o ve “ i tw o ul d ha ve t ak e n t he s am e a c t i o n i n t he a bs e nc e o f t he i m p erm i ssible m oti va ti n g factor

. ” Id . a t 3 1 2

– 1 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). H e r e , Bi s ho p a r gue s t hatTTPD r e f us e d t o hi r e hi m b e c aus e he r e c e i ve d a di sc harge t hat w as ot hert han honora b l e, an d t hatt hi s c r i t er i on w as i m pe r m i s s ibl e . I nde e d, i n T h ompson v. G allag h er , 489 F
. 2d 443 , 449 ( 5th C i r. 1 1973) , a c as e w i t h so m ew hat sim i l arfac t s, w e f ound un c ons t i t ut i onala l aw m an da t i ng t he e m pl o ym e ntt e r m i nat i o n o f a ny i ndivi dua lw i t h a m i l i t ar y di scharge tha t w a s o th er t h an hon orabl e. W e need not det erm i n e w h et h er T h ompson appl i es t o t he i nst antcas e. E ven i f B i sho p w er e t o e st abl i sh a p r i ma fa cie case of

d iscr im i n ati on , T T P D ha s art i cul ated a val i d n on - di scr i m i n ator y rea son f

or n ot h i ri n g B i sh op : h e li ed on h i s P erso n a lH i story S tatem en t. A l th ou gh the distri ct cou rt ga ve B i sh op an op p ortu n i ty to ga th e r e v i d en ce to
s h o w th a tth is n o n -d is c r im in a t o r yr e a s o n w a s p r e t e x t u a l o rw a s n o tT T P D ’s
m o tiv a tin gfa c to r , B is h o p fa ile d to d o s o . T h e r e fo r e , B is h o p fa ile d to ca r r yh is b u r d e n o f e s ta b lis h in ga cla im fo re ith e rra c e o ra g e d is c r im in a tio n . I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e A F F IR M the distri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. Case: 09-40487 Document: 00511062494 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/25/2010