Thomas, et al v. Staple Cotton Corp, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
May 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60444
Summary Calendar
BETTIE THOMAS; LARRY BOLES; WILLIAM C. GARY; ANNIE EPPS; OLIVER
MORRIS; ANNIE L. PHILLIPS; THOMAS POINDEXTER; BASH WALKER, JR.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
STAPLE COTTON DISCOUNT CORP.; STAPLE COTTON COOPER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(4:02-CV-224)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs Bettie Thomas, Larry Boles, William C. Gary, Annie
Epps, Oliver Morris, Annie L. Phillips, Thomas Poindexter, and Bash
Walker, Jr., contest the summary judgment awarded Staple Cotton
Discount Corp. and Staple Cotton Cooper (together, Staple Cotton).
Plaintiffs claimed failure to promote, in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. §

-- 1 of 3 --

2
1981. Thomas also raised a claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1211.
When summary judgment was granted, all Plaintiffs, other than
Thomas, were Staple Cotton employees. Thomas is permanently
disabled.
A summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is
reviewed de novo. E.g., Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v.
ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir. 2002). Such judgment
is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law". FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). All evidence must be
construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. E.g., Kee
v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206, 210 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534
U.S. 892 (2001). If a plaintiff fails to prove an essential
element of his claim, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A party opposing
summary judgment may not rest on the pleadings, but rather must
provide specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for
trial. E.g., Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458
(5th Cir. 1998). (Thomas waived her ADA claim by failing to brief
it on appeal. E.g., Adams v. Unione Mediterranea di Sicurta, 364
F.3d 646, 653 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 979 (2004).)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Title VII and § 1981 require the same proof. Shackelford v.
DeLoitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398, 403-04 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999).
To avoid summary judgment, a plaintiff must “establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of
discrimination”. Celestine v. Petroleos de Venez. SA, 266 F.3d
343, 354 (5th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff asserting racial
discrimination for failure to promote establishes a prima facie
case by satisfying the following conditions: “(1) [he] is a member
of the protected class; (2) he sought and was qualified for the
position; (3) he was rejected for the position; (4) the employer
continued to seek applicants with the plaintiff's qualifications”.
Id. at 354-55.
If a prima facie case is established, “the burden of
production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions”. Id. at 355. The burden
then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s stated
nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. Id.
The district court held Plaintiffs failed to show a genuine
issue of material fact on their race discrimination claims.
Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court opinion,
Staple Cotton is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --