Case Name: Allen ANCAR, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORT SHIP SERVICE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-31
Citations: 553 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 13-30917
Parties: Allen ANCAR, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORT SHIP SERVICE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Allen ANCAR, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORT SHIP SERVICE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-30917
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 31, 2014.
John Courtney Wilson, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Rachel Wendt Wisdom, Esq., Kathryn Marie Knight, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Allen Anear sued his employer, claiming discriminatory compensation. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. There is no error, so we affirm.
Anear was a driver who transported river pilots to and from the port. Driving assignments were made on a rotating basis from a tablet on which the name of each pilot was recorded when he called for a ride. Anear claimed that he frequently was assigned to pilots who did not give a tip or who tipped low amounts and that such assignments were made because of his race.
The district court correctly reasoned as follows:
Plaintiff fails to point to any case law suggesting that tips, over which Plaintiff admits Defendant had no control, constitute compensation, terms, or privileges of employment under Title VII. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not point to any case law suggesting that all employees are entitled to the same amount in tips in the absence of an agreement with the employer regarding tipping. Additional ly, Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that the dispatcher intentionally made driver assignments based on race do not suffice without some supportive and qualifying evidentiary showing to create a material factual dispute.
The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.