Court Opinion

ID: 9385643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 18:00:55.88676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.578437
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10133     Document: 00516704537          Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                             FILED
                                                                          April 7, 2023
                                   No. 22-10133                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk

   Lisa Holmes,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Thomson Reuters (Tax and Accounting) Incorporated,

                                                            Defendant—Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:19-CV-993

   Before King, Jones, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Thomson Reuters (Tax & Accounting), Inc., terminated Lisa Holmes
   for violating its nepotism policy. Alleging her termination was due to her age
   and sex, Holmes sued Thomson Reuters under Title VII of the Civil Rights
   Act (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10133          Document: 00516704537               Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                            No. 22-10133

   (“ADEA”). The district court entered summary judgment for Thomson
   Reuters. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
                                                  I.
          Lisa Holmes worked in Thomson Reuters’s tax and accounting
   division as Senior Director. Holmes’s sister, Michele, was in a long-term,
   close relationship with Dena Lambert for many years. 1
          Dena was twice considered for a position with Thomson Reuters
   under Holmes’s supervisory authority. 2 Dena first applied for a customer
   service position after Holmes informed Michele of the opening. Though she
   did not make the offer herself, Lisa Holmes was in the relevant chain of
   command and approved the offer. Due to a hiring freeze, Dena was not
   extended the offer.
          A year later, Dena was again considered by Thomson Reuters for a
   similar position. In requesting final approval to offer Dena the job, Holmes
   sent an email signed by Rick Rocco, a senior manager, to higher-ups stating
   that Dena Lambert-Holmes “is not related to Lisa Holmes.” Dena was
   offered the job, which she accepted.
          Dena was considered for a promotion less than a year later. At a
   meeting where the candidates for the promotion were being considered,
   Holmes “appeared to be strongly advocating for the hire of Dena to the point
   of disparaging the other candidates.” Holmes’s colleagues at the meeting
   “felt uncomfortable.” One of those colleagues, upon learning of Michele and
   Dena’s relationship, consulted with Human Resources.                          As a result,

          1
              For the sake of clarity, Michele and Dena will be referred to by their first names.
          2
            Dena, at that point, used the last name “Lambert-Holmes.” Thomson Reuters
   introduced evidence that Dena legally changed her name to “Dena Lambert-Holmes” well
   before applying for the jobs to have “the same name as other members of [her] family.”

                                                  2
Case: 22-10133      Document: 00516704537           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                     No. 22-10133

   Thomson Reuters began “an investigation into whether an undisclosed
   conflict-of-interest existed” between Holmes and Dena.
           Thomson Reuters policy requires employees to:
           identify potential conflicts when they arise and to notify in
           writing an appropriate manager, Human Resources
           representative or a lawyer who supports your business if you
           are unsure whether a relationship or transaction poses a
           conflict before engaging in the conduct or as soon as you learn
           of the potential conflict. An appropriate manager or Human
           Resources representative will be able to pre-clear or resolve
           certain conflicts, or will be able to contact someone else at
           Thomson Reuters who can.
   (emphasis added). The policy states specifically that a conflict exists when
   “[s]omeone with a close relationship with you is in a direct reporting
   relationship with you, or you have the ability to supervise, review or influence
   the job evaluation, hiring, pay or benefits of someone with a close relationship
   with you.” The policy defines a “close relationship” as “members of your
   immediate family or household,” “a personal relationship between a
   supervisor and a subordinate that could influence objectivity,” or a
   “relationship with a partner, cousin, more distant relative or friend [that]
   could influence your objectivity.”
           Robert Goodall, a member of the compliance team at Thomson
   Reuters, led the investigation into Holmes. He determined that Holmes and
   Dena had a close relationship as defined by the policy and that Holmes had
   neglected to “notify in writing” a relevant member of the Thomson Reuters
   team.
           Thomson Reuters terminated Holmes based solely on the result of
   Goodall’s investigation.    Holmes contends that the official reason was
   “pretextual and discriminatory and used to target [her] for termination based

                                          3
Case: 22-10133        Document: 00516704537             Page: 4      Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                        No. 22-10133

   on her age and gender.” Additionally, when Holmes filed for unemployment
   benefits, Thomson Reuters “objected to her benefits based upon alleged
   misconduct.” This, she contends, “was in retaliation for her complaints of
   discriminatory treatment and to conceal their discriminatory animus.”
           Holmes filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment
   Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC issued a right to sue letter
   the same day. Holmes then sued Thomson Reuters, asserting discrimination
   and retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA. 3 After discovery and a
   hearing, the district court judge entered summary judgment for Thomson
   Reuters. This appeal followed.
                                              II.
           This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
   novo, applying the same standard on appeal as did the district court. Rogers
   v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2014). “The court
   shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
   dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
   matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). This court “construe[s] all facts
   and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party when
   reviewing grants of motions for summary judgment.” Murray v. Earle,
   405 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2005).
                                              A.
           Thomson Reuters does not dispute that Holmes made a prima facie
   showing of discrimination under both Title VII and the ADEA.
   Furthermore, Thomson Reuters’s non-discriminatory justification, that

           3
             Holmes filed her complaint in the Southern District of New York, but her case
   was transferred to the Northern District of Texas. She voluntarily dismissed her New York
   state law claims.

                                              4
Case: 22-10133        Document: 00516704537             Page: 5      Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                        No. 22-10133

   Holmes was terminated for violation of company policies, is legitimate. 4 See,
   e.g., Kitchen v. BASF, 952 F.3d 247, 253 (5th Cir. 2020). Thus, the only issue
   is whether Holmes demonstrated that Thomson Reuters’s justification is
   pretextual.    “A plaintiff may show pretext either through evidence of
   disparate treatment or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation
   is false or unworthy of credence.” Jackson v. Cal-W. Packaging Corp.,
   602 F.3d 374, 378–79 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
           Holmes argues that Thomson Reuters’s investigation “was so lacking
   in reliability” that it had to be pretext for the company’s desire to implement
   “cultural change,” i.e., replace older women like Holmes with younger men.
   Specifically, she contends “no reasonable employer would have accepted
   [the investigation’s] findings” that she violated the company’s nepotism
   policy because Goodall failed to contact two former employees to whom
   Holmes says she disclosed her relationship.
           Holmes’s argument for pretext is insufficient for two reasons. First,
   even if Goodall interviewed those two former employees and found that
   Holmes verbally disclosed her conflict to them, Goodall did not uncover, nor
   did Holmes produce, any evidence that she disclosed her conflict in writing
   to them, or any other appropriate authority, as required by the policy.
   Indeed, at the district court’s summary judgment hearing, Holmes’s counsel
   conceded that “notification to the company has to be in writing” and that
   Holmes had no “evidence of a written notification.” Nor did Goodall find,
   or Holmes produce, any evidence that an appropriate official at Thomson
   Reuters “pre-clear[ed] or resolve[d]” the conflict. In other words, even if

           4
              Holmes claims that termination was a disproportionate reaction to the alleged
   violation, especially given her long and well-reviewed tenure at Thomson Reuters prior to
   the investigation. Disproportionate or not, Holmes cannot and does not ultimately dispute
   that an employer may terminate an employee who violates the company’s nepotism policy.

                                              5
Case: 22-10133      Document: 00516704537            Page: 6    Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                      No. 22-10133

   Goodall had conducted the investigation to Holmes’s specifications, he
   would have still concluded that Holmes violated the company policy.
          Second, regardless of whether the conclusion of the investigation was
   correct, Holmes has not produced any evidence that the “real reason” for
   her termination was discrimination and not her violation of the nepotism
   policy. Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 899 (5th Cir. 2002).
   Holmes only argued that the investigation arrived at the wrong result. That
   is not enough to prove pretext. See Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA Inc., 413 F.3d
   471, 478 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[E]vidence that the employer’s investigation
   merely came to an incorrect conclusion does not establish a [discriminatory]
   motivation behind an adverse employment decision.”).
          Beyond disagreeing with the investigation’s result, Holmes only offers
   speculation that her termination was motivated by “cultural change,” which
   she believes is code for age and sex-based discrimination. The only times
   “cultural change” was mentioned in this case, however, was in an email, in
   passing, and a deposition of one of the newly hired managers who stated that
   “one of the key objectives within this department was a change of culture,
   and that culture needed to be one of respect and value based driven
   decisionmaking and value based interactions with each other,” not “one of
   gossip and hallway conversations.” It is speculative to conclude that (1) the
   hidden meaning behind this statement is that the company prefers younger
   men as managers, and (2) this preference, not the investigation’s findings,
   was the true motivation behind Holmes’s termination. “[A] party cannot
   defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated
   assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” Jones v. Gulf Coast Rest. Grp., Inc.,
   8 F.4th 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).

                                           6
Case: 22-10133      Document: 00516704537           Page: 7   Date Filed: 04/07/2023

                                     No. 22-10133

          Holmes has not demonstrated that the investigation was unworthy of
   credence and has not provided any evidence beyond speculation that the
   reason Thomson Reuters terminated her was pretextual. Holmes, thus, fails
   to create a material fact issue on pretext.
                                          B.
          Employers have an obligation to report to the Texas Workforce
   Commission “any facts known” that may “adversely affect the claimant’s
   right to [unemployment] benefits.” TEX. LAB. CODE § 208.004. Upon its
   receipt of a notice under the statute, Thomson Reuters had an obligation to
   report its reason for discharge. Thus, we agree with the district court that
   “merely presenting to the Texas Workforce Commission its position as to
   why the Plaintiff was discharged . . . cannot constitute retaliation as a matter
   of law because they are obligated to have reported the reason for the
   discharge.” We, therefore, reject Holmes’s retaliation claim.
                                         III.
          For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

                                           7