Opinion ID: 64131
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jusuf’s National Origin Discrimination Claim

Text: Under Title VII it is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Jusuf has not provided direct evidence of discrimination, therefore, her Title VII claim based on circumstantial evidence is analyzed under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). See Turner, 476 F.3d at 345. Jusuf must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that she (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified for her position, and (4) that others similarly situated were treated more favorably. See Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2005). Jusuf fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Jusuf is a member of a protected class–she is Asian-American and originally from Indonesia. Jusuf was subjected to an adverse employment action–she was terminated. The parties do not dispute whether Jusuf was qualified for her position. Jusuf, however, fails to demonstrate that others similarly situated were treated more favorably. Jusuf alleges that she was terminated while other white employees were treated more favorably. To prove her prima facie case, Jusuf must demonstrate that Southwest gave preferential treatment to a white employee under “‘nearly identical circumstances’; [sic] that is, ‘that the misconduct for which [Jusuf] was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by . . . [other white] employees.’” Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Science Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 514 (5th Cir. 2001). For conduct to be nearly identical, the individual given 5 No. 08-10383 preferential treatment needs to have engaged in similar conduct to Jusuf (i.e., accepted gratuities and improperly waived upgrade fees), and must have the same supervisors as Jusuf. See Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 305 (5th Cir. 2000). Southwest must also be aware of the alleged misconduct of the other employee. See Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 221 (5th Cir. 2001). Jusuf alleged that (1) Steve Holland, another Customer Service Supervisor at the same station, frequently waived upgrade fees for a customer, (2) other Southwest employees at the Dallas station received gratuities from Dr. Andrews, (3) a Southwest agent at a different location received passes for a Lou Diamond Phillips stage performance, (4) Julie Boston, a Houston employee, also accepted gratuities from and waived upgrade fees for Dr. Andrews, (5) Southwest employees at a different location received gift baskets from two customers, (6) two Southwest employees at the Dallas location were involved in an extramarital affair, and (7) another employee told Jusuf that a Southwest employee, S.B. Stone, violated Southwest’s sexual harassment policies. Claims (2)-(7) of Jusuf’s allegations fail because the individuals are not similarly situated to Jusuf. The employees in claims (2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) did not accept gratuities and waive upgrade fees. Claim (4) fails because Boston had different supervisors than Jusuf. See Wyvill, 212 F.3d at 305. Claim (1) alleges that Holland, a white Southwest employee, who reported to the same supervisors as Jusuf, accepted gratuities from customers and waived upgrade fees. Specifically, Jusuf alleges that Holland received Nascar tickets as a gratuity from a customer, and that Holland repeatedly waived upgrade fees for the customer. At Jusuf’s deposition, however, she testified that she only witnessed Holland waive an upgrade fair for the customer on one occasion. In addition, Jusuf testified that she did not report the infraction to her supervisors and that she had no reason to believe that Ryan or Allison were aware of Holland’s actions. Finally, Jusuf fails to provide any evidentiary support for her 6 No. 08-10383 claim that Holland repeatedly waived upgrade fees for a customer whom he received gratuities from, or that if this did occur, that Southwest was aware of Holland’s infraction.1 Thus, Holland is not similarly situated. Jusuf fails to demonstrate a prima facie case of national original discrimination, and we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of Southwest’s motion for summary judgment based on Jusuf’s national origin discrimination claim.