Walters v. BG Foods, Inc

Filing 53

ORDER overruling pltf's objections, adopting 49 Report and Recommendation and granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. Pltf's claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 4/25/15. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
HUEY P. WALTERS, et al.,

§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
v.
§
§
BG FOODS, INC. (MCDONALD’S #4723), §
§
Defendant.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-96

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for
consideration of and recommended disposition on case-dispositive pretrial motions. On April 8,
2015, Judge Giblin issued his report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court
grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and enter judgment in defendant’s favor on the
plaintiff’s Title VII claims.
The plaintiff filed objections to Judge Giblin’s report. In his objections, the plaintiff
contends that his claims are based not only on discrimination regarding his sexual orientation, but
also based on his sex and a hostile work environment. He goes on to describe a handful of incidents
in which co-workers acted disrespectfully to him and used slurs related to sexual orientation. He
also complains that he and another male were the only male managers while there were six female
managers at his workplace.
After fully considering the plaintiff’s objections, even if his allegations were all true and
verified, these newly presented statements do not undermine Judge Giblin’s careful analysis. As
the magistrate judge fully explained, the Fifth Circuit has not extended Title VII protection to sexual
orientation. See Report and Recommendation [Doc. #49], at pp. 6-7. The plaintiff has not offered

any legal precedent suggesting otherwise. Membership in a protected class is a prima face element
of a Title VII claim. See Report, at p. 7 (citing Mims v. Carrier Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 706, 714 (E.D.
Tex. 2000)). Even assuming that plaintiff’s claims of discrimination or hostile work environment
could be construed as based on gender, he has not offered evidence sufficient to create a fact issue
on the severity or pervasiveness of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Finally, the plaintiff’s
objections fail to address the defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the
plaintiff. Judge Giblin thoroughly analyzed the applicable legal standards and the plaintiff’s claims
in a 12 page report. The personal beliefs and unverified anecdotal evidence presented in plaintiff’s
objections do not persuade the Court that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions of law
should be altered.
Therefore, pursuant to the plaintiff’s objections and in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings, the record,
the plaintiff’s objections, and the applicable law in this proceeding. After review, the court finds
that Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendations should be accepted. The Court ORDERS that
the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #49] is ADOPTED and the plaintiff’s objections [Doc. #52]
are OVERRULED. The Court further ORDERS that the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment [Doc. #38] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED in their entirety, with
prejudice. The Court will enter final judgment separately.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25 day of April, 2015.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2