Opinion ID: 2754383
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Englard’s Comment

Text: Finally, Hamilton contends that Englard’s comment about the race of the grounds crew at Waters Landing is evidence of racial bias. In her deposition testimony, Hamilton claimed that Englard had, when he first visited the Waters Landing apartment complex, observed to her that the entire grounds crew was African American. 31 Although Englard denies the exchange took place, we make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant when reviewing a grant of summary judgment. 29See Nichols v. Lewis Grocer, 138 F.3d 563, 568 (5th Cir. 1998). 30Bellard v. Gautreaux, 675 F.3d 454, 460 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the evidence proffered by the plaintiff to satisfy his burden of proof must be competent and admissible at trial.”). 31 It appears from the record that this observation was factually correct. 12 Case: 14-10373 Document: 00512845401 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 No. 14-10373 Because Hamilton has failed to produce substantial evidence of pretext, we apply this court’s “stray remarks” doctrine to Englard’s comment. 32 A remark is evidence of discrimination if it is (1) related to the protected class of which the plaintiff is a member, (2) proximate in time to the adverse employment action, (3) made by an individual with authority over that action, and (4) related to that action. 33 “Comments that do not meet these criteria are considered ‘stray remarks’ and, standing alone, are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.” 34 Englard’s comment satisfies the first three elements of the strayremarks test: (1) it relates to Hamilton’s race, as she and the grounds crew are all African American, (2) it occurred shortly before she was fired, and (3) it was made by Englard, who both parties agree was the primary decisionmaker behind Hamilton’s discharge. However, there is no evidence that Englard’s observation about the race of the grounds crew was related to the decision to terminate Hamilton. Thus, Englard’s comment is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether AVPM’s stated reason for terminating Hamilton was pretext for race discrimination.