Opinion ID: 3167566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Lewis’s Probationary Status and Firing

Text: Mr. Lewis, an African-American male who was 47 years old at the relevant times, applied for a job with Twenty-First Century. After an interview, Mr. Lewis was hired for a warehouse job, subject to a 30-day probationary period. At the end of the probationary period, Mr. Lewis was to be evaluated to determine whether he could remain an employee. Of the 25 work days in Lewis’s probationary period, he was absent 4 days, found sleeping twice, and observed more than once texting and talking on a personal cellphone. His supervisor’s warnings about sleeping and using his cellphone on the job were met with argument. These lapses implicated Twenty-First Century’s written policy, which informed employees that unsatisfactory conduct or unacceptable behavior (such as failure to report to work regularly and punctually) could result in termination. Based on these infractions, Twenty-First Century fired Mr. Lewis after the end of the probationary period. Mr. Lewis’s position was filled by an older employee. Mr. Lewis sued Twenty-First Century, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2012), and race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (2012). The district court granted Twenty-First Century’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. 2 Mr. Lewis appealed. Because Mr. Lewis proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally but “do not assume the role of advocate.” See United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214, 1216 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008)).