Gordon v. Continental Airlines

*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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-21016
Summary Calendar
JOHNNY R GORDON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES; ET AL,
Defendants,
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(03-CV-5246)
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff, Johnny Gordon, appeals from a district-court order
granting summary judgment against his Title-VII and section- 1983
discrimination claims. Gordon also appeals from the district
court’s subsequent refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over his state-law claims. We affirm.
Gordon, a black man, claims that Continental Airlines
discriminated against him on the basis of his race by (1) failing

-- 1 of 3 --

2
to promote him; (2) demoting him from lead-CSA to CSA; and (3)
terminating him. Continental Airlines has offered several
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for all three employment
actions, including (1) Gordon’s altercation with a representative
from the Financial Times, one of Continental’s customers; (2)
Gordon’s “loud and abusive” disruption of a CSA shift meeting; (3)
several warnings to Gordon for “ranting and raving” at his co-
workers; (4) a co-worker survey that ranked Gordon’s performance
lowest among his peers; (5) Gordon’s subsequent falsification of
the next round of performance surveys; (6) Gordon’s filing of false
allegations against his co-workers, including allegations of
substance abuse and bribe solicitation; (7) Gordon’s secret taping
of conversations with co-workers; and (8) a sexual harassment claim
that was filed against Gordon.
Faced with these non-discriminatory reasons, Gordon must (in
order to survive summary judgment) create an issue of fact that
either (1) Continental’s reasons are not true, but are instead
pretext for discrimination or (2) Continental’s reasons, while
true, are only one motivation for its adverse employment actions,
and that the other motivating factor is Gordon’s race. Keelan v.
Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 341 (5th Cir. 2005).
Gordon has failed to create a genuine issue as to either.
Indeed, he has presented only a scintilla of evidence suggesting
that Continental Airlines discriminated against him on the basis of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
his race. He notes that, on one occasion, a white man was caught
sleeping on the job and was not reprimanded; he notes that on a
different occasion, a different white man once shouted at his
supervisor during a meeting as was not reprimanded. Ultimately,
Gordon has failed to created a genuine issue of fact as to whether
Continental discriminated against him on the basis of his race.
Pratt v. City of Houston, 247 F.3d 601, 606 (5th Cir. 2001).
Given this failure, the district court properly dismissed on
summary judgment Gordon’s Title-VII and section-1983 discrimination
claims. Having dismissed all federal claims before it, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gordon’s state-law
retaliation claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --