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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]
Date Filed: 07/05/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE W. DAVIS, IV,
United States Court of Appeals
July 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff - Appellant
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.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 07/05/2017
terminated Davis for using his cell phone in a restricted area without a valid
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.
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?