Court Opinion

ID: 9405168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 18:00:54.583554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.176263
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50130         Document: 00516801361             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50130
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  June 27, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Osiris C. Terry,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Federal Bureau of Prisons; Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney
   General,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:21-CV-701
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          In this employment discrimination case, pro se Plaintiff-Appellant
   Osiris C. Terry appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
   Defendants-Appellees (“the Government”), the Federal Bureau of Prisons
   (“BOP”) and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, dismissing Terry’s
   claims with prejudice. Because we hold that the district court did not err in
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50130       Document: 00516801361          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                     No. 23-50130

   granting summary judgment in favor of the Government and dismissing
   Terry’s claims, we AFFIRM.
                I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          In 2014, Terry was employed with the Federal Detention Center in
   Honolulu, Hawaii (“FDC Honolulu”). According to Terry, in April 2016, an
   inmate became “insolent” and directed a “terroristic threat” toward him in
   a visitation room. Terry states that he remained professional during the
   incident but another officer, Dwayne Bautista, claims that he observed Terry
   yelling at the inmate. The incident was internally investigated, but Terry
   complains that he was still sent to work in the inmate’s housing unit after the
   incident. Terry, who is a Black, Native American male, opines that the
   incident would have been handled differently if it had involved a Caucasian
   officer. Specifically, Terry alleges that that if a Caucasian officer would have
   been involved, the inmate would have been transferred to a special housing
   unit and the officer would not have been sent to work in the inmate’s housing
   unit after the incident.
          In May 2016, Terry contacted the BOP Equal Employment Office
   (“EEO”) and met with a counselor. He was provided with a Notice of Right
   to File in August of that year but never filed a formal EEO complaint of
   discrimination or hostile work environment for the incident. He then began
   seeking employment at other geographic locations within the BOP. He
   applied at the Federal Correctional Institute in Bastrop, Texas (“FCIB”) for
   the position of: (1) Correctional Officer (Senior Officer), vacancy
   announcement number BAS-2017-0006 (“Vacancy I”); and (2) Correctional
   Officer (Senior Officer), vacancy announcement number BAS-2017-0017
   (“Vacancy II”).

                                              2
Case: 23-50130      Document: 00516801361           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                     No. 23-50130

          A. Vacancy I
          The first position for which Terry applied was Vacancy I, the position
   of Correctional Officer (Senior Officer) at FCIB under vacancy
   announcement number BAS-2017-0006. Terry was on the Exception
   Certificate for this position, along with nine other candidates. Applicants on
   the Exception Certificate are eligible for noncompetitive consideration and
   are exceptions to the Merit Promotion Procedures. Additionally, these
   applicants are automatically sent to the selecting official for consideration. In
   essence, these types of applicants are applying for a lateral transfer, rather
   than a promotion.
          The selecting official for this vacancy was FCIB Warden Rodney
   Myers. Myers stated that he considered Terry for the position along with the
   other applicants on the Best Qualified List and Exception Certificates. He
   considered each candidate’s resume and reference checks and also received
   input from Associate Warden Crystal Carter regarding the selection. Carter
   conducted reference checks, reviewed the candidates’ resumes, and
   provided recommendations to Myers for selection consideration.
          Terry received references from Associate Warden David Bruce and
   Lieutenant Soles from FDC Honolulu which noted that he had “average”
   ratings in all categories. The position was ultimately awarded to Senior
   Officer Specialist, Joseph Kuehner—a Caucasian male applicant. Kuehner
   received all “above average” ratings on his reference checks during the
   selection process and was chosen for the position based on these ratings in
   addition to his resume. According to Myers and Carter, neither was aware of
   Terry’s race, sex, or involvement in prior EEO activity during the selection
   process.

                                              3
Case: 23-50130      Document: 00516801361           Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                     No. 23-50130

          B. Vacancy II
          The second position that Terry applied for was Vacancy II, the
   position of Correctional Officer (Senior Officer) at FCIB under vacancy
   announcement number BAS-2017-0017. Like Vacancy I, Terry was on the
   Exception Certificate for this position, along with 33 other candidates. Myers
   was also the Selecting Official for this position.
          Myers again stated that he considered Terry for the position along
   with the other applicants on the Best Qualified List and Exception
   Certificates. He indicated that he considered each candidate’s resume,
   reference checks, and input from Carter regarding the selection. Carter again
   conducted reference checks, reviewed the candidates’ resumes, and
   provided recommendations to Myers for selection consideration.
          Terry received references from Associate Warden Ulrich and FDC
   Honolulu Lieutenant Shawn Tabar. Ulrich rated Terry at “average” in three
   categories and “above average” in three categories. Ulrich also provided a
   voucher for Terry, stating that he would hire Terry for the position. Later, an
   individual filling out Terry’s reference form on behalf of Tabar noted a rating
   of “below average” for communication skills and “average” in all other
   categories. Tabar nevertheless provided a voucher for Terry, stating that he
   would hire him for that position. According to Tabar, he was unaware of any
   of Terry’s prior EEO activity. Based on the reference checks Carter received
   for Terry, she did not consider him a suitable candidate for the vacancy.
   Carter and Myers stated again that they were not aware of Terry’s race, sex,
   or prior EEO activity during the selection process. There were five total
   selectees for this position, all of whom had received “above average” ratings
   in all categories from both reference checks conducted during the selection
   process. Among the five selectees, two had prior EEO activity, four were
   male, and two were Hispanic.

                                              4
Case: 23-50130      Document: 00516801361           Page: 5   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                     No. 23-50130

          C. Terry’s Non-selection for Vacancies I & II
          In January 2018, Terry learned that he was not selected for either of
   the two correctional officer positions for which he applied at FCIB. Because
   he was not selected for either Vacancy (I or II), Terry filed suit in federal
   district court in Hawaii alleging claims of hostile work environment, race and
   sex discrimination, and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
   Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, et seq. He also advanced claims under
   the No Fear Act. Terry sought $2,000,000 for “the hostile work
   environment he was subjected to and discriminative behavior.”
          The district court in Hawaii dismissed several of Terry’s claims for
   failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and transferred his remaining
   claims—those involving his non-selection for Vacancies I and II—to the
   Western District of Texas where FCIB is located. After Terry’s lawsuit was
   transferred, the Government moved for summary judgment on his remaining
   claims. In its motion, the Government argued that (1) the court should
   dismiss the BOP from the case because the only proper defendant for a
   federal employee’s claim of workplace discrimination or retaliation is the
   agency or department head, not the entire agency or department, (2) Terry
   could not make a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation; and (3)
   Terry could not raise an issue of fact as to whether BOP’s proffered reasons
   for its selection decisions were pretextual.
          The magistrate judge (“MJ”) agreed and issued a report and
   recommendation (“R&R”) that the district court grant summary judgment
   in favor of the Government. Terry objected to the MJ’s R&R so the district
   court conducted a de novo review. Thereafter, it adopted the MJ’s R&R as
   its own order and dismissed Terry’s claims with prejudice for the reasons
   stated therein. In its order, the district court first granted the Government’s
   motion to dismiss the BOP because it was not a proper defendant to Terry’s

                                              5
Case: 23-50130       Document: 00516801361         Page: 6    Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                    No. 23-50130

   Title VII claims. The court then went on to analyze his claims pertaining to
   his non-selection for the two vacant positions and concluded that he failed to
   make out a prima facie case: (1) for either race or sex discrimination (and also
   failed to present contravening evidence as to pretext), and (2) in support of
   his retaliation claim. Terry filed this pro se appeal of the district court’s
   order.
                           II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
            “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.” Sanders v.
   Christwood, 970 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 2020). “Summary judgment is proper
   ‘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.’” Id. (citing Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 56(a)). A dispute regarding a material fact is “genuine” if the
   evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the
   nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
   “Conclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be relied
   on as evidence by the nonmoving party.” Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d
   183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324
   (1986). “The party opposing summary judgment is required to identify
   specific evidence in the record and to articulate the precise manner in which
   that evidence supports his or her claim.” Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136
   F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). “A panel may affirm summary judgment on
   any ground supported by the record, even if it is different from that relied on
   by the district court.” Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434, 438 (5th Cir.
   2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
                                III. DISCUSSION
            As a preliminary matter, it appears that Terry advances at least two
   arguments in his primary brief on appeal which are not properly before this
   court because he failed to raise them before the district court. These

                                              6
Case: 23-50130         Document: 00516801361                Page: 7       Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                           No. 23-50130

   arguments relate to his claims that: (1) “the district [c]ourt incorrectly
   applied and/or considered the ‘implied false certification theory of liability’
   by impermissibly weighing the evidence relative to claims for payment,
   materiality, and conspiracy” and (2) the Government violated the
   Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
   Because neither of these arguments were adequately raised before the district
   court, we will not address them on appeal. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8
   F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument by failing to
   raise it in the first instance in the district court—thus raising it for the first
   time on appeal.”). 1 As to his remaining arguments, affording Terry’s pro se
   brief a liberal construction, 2 he appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
   claims related to his non-selection for Vacancies I and II. Terry alleges that
   he was not selected for these positions due to his status as a Black, Native
   American male (discrimination) and because of his prior EEO activity
   (retaliation). We address each issue in turn.
           A. Discrimination
           A plaintiff may prove a claim of intentional discrimination either by
   direct or circumstantial evidence. McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551,
   556 (5th Cir. 2007). Circumstantial evidence cases are analyzed under the

           _____________________
           1
             To the extent Terry attempts to appeal the district court of Hawaii’s dismissal of
   his hostile work environment and related claims for failure to exhaust his administrative
   remedies, or the court’s dismissal of his claims under the No Fear Act on grounds that the
   Act does not create a private right of action, we do not address those issues herein because
   Terry’s notice of appeal pertains exclusively to the order of the federal district court for the
   Western District of Texas which only addressed Terry’s Title VII claims related to his non-
   selection for Vacancies I & II and the dismissal of his claims against the BOP.
           2
             See Brown v. Sudduth, 675 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2012) (“We give pro se briefs a
   liberal construction.” (citation omitted)).

                                                      7
Case: 23-50130      Document: 00516801361           Page: 8   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                    No. 23-50130

   burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
   U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973):
              Under that framework, the plaintiff must first establish
              a prima facie case of discrimination, which requires a
              showing that the plaintiff (1) is a member of a
              protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at
              issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse
              employment action by the employer; and (4) was
              replaced by someone outside his protected group or
              was treated less favorably than other similarly situated
              employees outside the protected group.
   McCoy, 492 F.3d at 556. If the plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie
   case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden then shifts to the
   employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
   employment action. Id. at 557. “The employer’s burden is only one of
   production, not persuasion, and involves no credibility assessment.” Id. If
   the employer meets its burden of production, the ultimate burden shifts back
   to the plaintiff who must then prove that the employer’s proffered reason is
   merely a pretext for a real discriminatory purpose. Id. To meet his burden,
   “the plaintiff must rebut each nondiscriminatory . . . reason articulated by
   the employer.” Id.
                 (1) Adverse Employment Action
          Because the record adequately supports that Terry is both a member
   of a protected group and is also qualified for the positions at issue, we begin
   with whether he has established an adverse employment action. This court
   has “analyzed the adverse employment action element in a stricter sense than
   some other circuits.” Burger v. Cent. Apt. Mgmt., Inc., 168 F.3d 875, 878 (5th
   Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have
   determined     “that   Title    VII   was       only   designed   to   address
   ‘ultimate employment decisions, not to address every decision made by

                                             8
Case: 23-50130      Document: 00516801361          Page: 9   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                    No. 23-50130

   employers that arguably might have some tangential effect upon those
   ultimate decisions.’” Id. (citation omitted). Likewise, we have concluded
   that “[r]efusing an employee’s request for a purely lateral transfer does not
   qualify as an ultimate employment decision [because] [s]uch a refusal is not
   akin to acts such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and
   compensating.” Id. at 879 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Nevertheless, we have also determined that “the denial of a
   transfer may be the objective equivalent of the denial of a promotion, and thus
   qualify as an adverse employment action, even if the new position would not
   have entailed an increase in pay or other tangible benefits.” See Alvarado v.
   Tex. Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 614 (5th Cir. 2007)). In other words, “if the
   position sought was objectively better, then the failure to award the position
   to the plaintiff can constitute an adverse employment action.” Id. To
   determine “whether the new position is objectively better, a number of
   factors may be relevant.” Id. These include “whether the position: entails an
   increase in compensation or other tangible benefits; provides greater
   responsibility or better job duties; provides greater opportunities for career
   advancement; requires greater skill, education, or experience; is obtained
   through a complex competitive selection process; or is otherwise objectively
   more prestigious.” Id. This inquiry is objective and “neither the employee’s
   subjective impressions as to the desirability of the new position nor the
   employee’s idiosyncratic reasons for preferring the new position are
   sufficient to render the position a promotion.” Id.
          Here, the district court concluded that Terry failed to establish a
   prima facie case of discrimination because he could not show that he was
   subjected to an adverse employment decision. We agree. As an initial matter,
   because the positions for which Terry applied were considered lateral
   transfers, he was required to provide evidence that the two Texas positions
   were “objectively better” than his position in Hawaii. Id. On appeal, Terry

                                             9
Case: 23-50130      Document: 00516801361             Page: 10     Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                       No. 23-50130

   argues that if he had been chosen for a position in Texas, he would have been
   able to: buy a cheap house (as opposed to an apartment), send his kids to
   better schools, get better pay, and have a better quality of life.
          As an initial matter, Terry provides no argument as to why his pay
   would be better in Texas. Additionally, the other factors he points to are
   unrelated to whether the positions in Texas were “objectively better” than
   his position in Hawaii. Instead, his arguments only relate to his “subjective
   impressions as to the desirability of the new position” and thus, are not
   sufficient to “render the position a promotion.” Id. He has therefore failed
   to present an adequate argument as to how his non-selection for the lateral
   transfers constituted an adverse employment action on the basis that the
   Texas positions were “objectively better” than his position in Hawaii. Id. For
   these reasons, we agree with the district court that Terry failed to carry his
   burden of establishing that he was subjected to an adverse employment action
   when he was not selected for the two vacant positions in Texas. Id.
          Terry also argues that his reference check ratings were adverse
   employment actions because he was “unfairly rated.” But his argument is
   belied by the record. As the district court observed, Terry received mostly
   “average” ratings, three “above average” ratings, and one “below average”
   rating. 3 Even if he could show that he was “unfairly rated,” his argument still
   fails because this court has explicitly held that “a low performance evaluation
   alone is not an adverse employment action.” Daniel v. Bd. of Supervisors for
   La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., No. 21-30555, 2022 WL 1055578, at *6
   (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022) (citation omitted). Moreover, even if a poor
   performance evaluation could constitute an adverse employment action, it

          _____________________
          3
            The record indicates that Terry received a total of twenty “average” ratings,
   three “above average” ratings, and one “below average” rating.

                                                10
Case: 23-50130     Document: 00516801361           Page: 11   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                    No. 23-50130

   would be a stretch for us to conclude that one below average rating out of
   twenty-one total ratings could qualify as such. For these reasons, we agree
   with the district court that Terry’s ratings did not qualify as adverse
   employment actions. Id.
                 (2) Similarly Situated Candidates
          We likewise agree with the district court that Terry has failed to show
   that the candidates that were selected for the two positions were “similarly
   situated” to him because they were in fact, superior candidates. See McCoy,
   492 F.3d at 556. As the district court reasoned, the candidates selected for
   both positions received higher reference ratings than Terry in all categories
   and the selected candidates’ resumes indicated superior qualifications to
   Terry’s. In addition, the selected candidate for Vacancy I had eight more
   years of employment experience with the BOP than Terry and all five of the
   selectees for Vacancy II had more experience in correctional facilities than
   Terry. Thus, Terry has failed to show that the candidates chosen were
   “similarly situated” to him. Id. For these same reasons, Terry cannot raise a
   genuine issue of material fact by showing that he was “clearly better
   qualified” than the selected candidates. See Walther v. Lone Star Gas, Co.,
   952 F.2d 119, 123 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that a plaintiff can raise a genuine
   issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment by presenting
   evidence that he was “clearly better qualified” than the candidate outside of
   his protected class that was ultimately hired).
          In conclusion, we agree that Terry has failed to present a prima facie
   case of discrimination with respect to his gender or his race. See McCoy, 492
   F.3d at 556. Because he fails to do so, we need not continue our analysis under
   the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework by addressing the
   Government’s arguments related to its legitimate, nondiscriminatory
   reasons for its hiring decisions. Id. at 557 (explaining that, under the

                                             11
Case: 23-50130     Document: 00516801361           Page: 12   Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                    No. 23-50130

   McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden does not shift “to the employer to
   articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action”
   until the “the plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case” of
   discrimination).
          B. Retaliation
          To the extent that Terry adequately briefs an argument with respect
   to retaliation, his claim on this issue also fails. “To establish a prima facie
   case of retaliation, an employee must show ‘(1) [he] engaged in a protected
   activity; (2) ‘[he] suffered an adverse employment action’; and (3) ‘a causal
   connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse
   employment action.’” See Saketkoo v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 31 F.4th
   990, 1000 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 969
   F.3d 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2020)). If the plaintiff successfully establishes his
   prima facie case, “the employer has the burden of production to provide a
   legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.”
   Id. at 1000 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If the employer
   meets this burden, then the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the
   proffered reason is pretextual.” Id. (citation omitted). “[T]he burden of
   persuasion remains with the employee throughout” the analysis. Id. (citation
   omitted).
          Because we have already held supra that Terry has failed to present
   evidence that he was subjected to an adverse employment action, we likewise
   hold that he cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Id. Even if he
   had established an adverse employment action, we agree with the district
   court that he cannot show a causal connection between his protected EEO
   activity and his non-selection for Vacancies I and II because he has failed to
   present evidence that either Myers or Carter was aware of his involvement in
   prior EEO activity. Id. Moreover, even if Terry could show they were aware,

                                             12
Case: 23-50130        Document: 00516801361              Page: 13       Date Filed: 06/27/2023

                                          No. 23-50130

   he fails to point to evidence in the record that his EEO activity was a factor
   considered in his non-selection for the two vacancies. For these reasons, we
   hold that Terry has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Id.
           In sum, because Terry has failed to provide competent summary
   judgment evidence in support of his claims that he was discriminated against
   on account of race or sex, or that he was retaliated against because of his prior
   protected EEO activity, when he was not selected for the two vacant
   positions in Texas, we hold that the district court did not err in rendering
   summary judgment in favor of the Government with respect to his Title VII
   claims.(4)(5)
                                    IV. CONCLUSION
           For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s summary
   judgment in favor of the Government, dismissing Terry’s claims with
   prejudice.

           _____________________
           4
             We also affirm the portion of the district court’s order granting the Government’s
   motion to dismiss the BOP from this suit because it was not a proper defendant to Terry’s
   Title VII claims. See Skoczylas v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 961 F.2d 543, 544 (5th Cir. 1992)
   (“The statute requires that a Title VII suit against the federal government name as
   defendant ‘the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate.’” (quoting 42
   U.S.C. § 2000e–16(c))).
           5
             To the extent that Terry attempts to make an argument related to the district
   court’s transfer of venue from Hawaii to Texas, he has waived any such argument for
   failure to adequately brief it. See N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd. v. Cigna
   Healthcare, 952 F.3d 708, 711 n.3 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Failure of an appellant to properly argue
   or present issues in an appellate brief renders those issues abandoned.”).

                                                    13