Opinion ID: 36163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: For a comment in the workplace to provide

Text: At trial and on appeal, Trotter has at- sufficient evidence for discrimination, it must tempted to cast doubt on BPB’s alleged be “(1) related [to the protected class of pergrounds for his termination by proof of state- sons of which plaintiff is a member]; (2) proximents allegedly made by Smith that might mate in time to the termination; (3) made by an evince racial bias. Firstly, Trotter alleges that individual with authority over the employment Smith referred to the operator of a secondary decision at issue; and (4) related to the saw, Miguel Collins, as a “straw boss.” Smith employment decision at issue.” Krystek v. testified in his deposition that he used the term Univ. of S. Miss., 164 F.3d 251, 256 (5th Cir. to refer to his floor lead persons or operators.4 1999). Neither of Smith’s comments satisfies Secondly, Trotter alleges that when he ran into that standard. Smith over a year later at a local restaurant, he overheard Smith mumble the “‘n’-word” in Smith’s use of the term “straw boss” was passing. Smith denies having made such a never made in connection with Trotter, and it remark. was not made in a manner that related to Smith’s decision to terminate Trotter. Fur- In determining whether there is a genuine thermore, Trotter offers no evidence as to issue of material fact, evidence and inferences when the comment was made, but only that it must be drawn in the light most favorable to was made. Smith’s use of the “n-word,” althe non-moving party. Daniels v. City of Ar- though highly offensive and never appropriate, lington, Tex., 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. also constitutes nothing more than a stray re2001). Therefore, let us assume arguendo that mark, because it occurred well over a year afboth of these incidents did occur and that ter Trotter’s termination (and therefore cannot Smith meant “straw boss” to be a racial slur. be said to be proximate in time), nor was the Even reading the evidence in a light most fa- comment made in the work place or was in any vorable to Trotter, these offensive remarks way related to the employment decision at constitute nothing more than “stray remarks” issue. Comments that are “vague and remote and cannot be considered sufficient to meet in time” are insufficient to establish discrimiTrotter’s burden of production, nor do they nation. See Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 create a genuine issue of fact that merits a jury F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 1996). trial.