Opinion ID: 2982611
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lewis’s Termination

Text: Lewis takes issue with the district court’s conclusion that Lewis failed to present evidence that he was treated differently from a similarly-situated employee, and thus did not make out a prima facie case regarding his termination. Lewis argues that Thomas Shibley, a Caucasian employee who pled guilty to manslaughter after killing his wife in a drunk-driving accident, was a similarly-situated employee. Even if Lewis could make out a prima facie case by showing that Shibley was a similarly-situated employee, NSRC has satisfied its burden by asserting that it terminated Lewis because he violated its off-the-job drug-activity policy. The only evidence that Lewis has offered to rebut that explanation is the fact that NSRC did not terminate Shibley. As NSRC has explained, however, it does not have a policy against off-the-job alcohol consumption. Even if Shibley’s criminal offense was “more serious” than Lewis’s, as Lewis contends, it did not violate a specific NSRC policy. Thus, the fact that NSRC continued to employ Shibley following his guilty plea does not cast doubt on NSRC’s explanation for its decision to terminate Lewis. Accordingly, Lewis has not rebutted NSRC’s stated reason for terminating his employment.