George Davis, IV v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41605 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 07/26/2017 [16-41605]

Download PDF
Case: 16-41605 Document: 00514059683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41605 Summary Calendar GEORGE W. DAVIS, IV, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; MOTIVA COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CV-480 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* George W. Davis, IV brought suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Motiva Enterprises, LLC and Motiva Company (collectively, “Motiva”), alleging that Motiva terminated his employment on the basis of his race. Motiva moved for summary judgment, arguing that Davis failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination and that it Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-41605 Document: 00514059683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 No. 16-41605 terminated Davis for using his cell phone in a restricted area without a valid permit. The district court granted summary judgment to Motiva, analyzing Davis’s claim under the familiar framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The district court held that Davis failed to establish a prima facie case because he was “unable to identify a similarly situated, non-black employee who was not discharged in nearly identical circumstances.” The district court alternatively held that Motiva provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Davis’s termination—his use of a cell phone in a restricted area—and that Davis failed to establish that this reason was pretext for racial discrimination. We AFFIRM for the reasons essentially given by the district court. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?