Opinion ID: 2812841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Title VII retaliation and state-law claims

Text: Throughout his brief, Minnis asserts that he is appealing the district court’s holding on his Title VII retaliation claim. The district court determined that Minnis had failed to demonstrate that he engaged in any activity protected by Title VII, and even if he had, there was no evidence of a causal link between that activity and his termination. The court went on to explain that even if Minnis had established a prima facie case of retaliation, he still could not rebut LSU’s legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decision. Minnis makes no argument with respect to the district court’s holding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation and has therefore waived review of this issue. “A party that asserts an argument on appeal, but fails to adequately brief it, is deemed to have waived it. It is not enough to merely mention or allude to a legal theory.” United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The same is true with respect to Minnis’s state-law claims. Though Minnis contends that he is appealing the district 13 Case: 14-31251 Document: 00513097916 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 No. 14-31251 court’s holding on those claims, he advances no legal argument. They are likewise waived. AFFIRMED. 14