Rebecca Singleton v. Young Men's Christian Assn ( 2019 )

Case: 19-20480 Document: 00515241686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 18, 2019
No. 19-20480 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
REBECCA SINGLETON,
Plaintiff−Appellant,
versus
YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YMCA)
OF GREATER HOUSTON,
Defendant−Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:17-CV-2903
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
After being terminated, Rebecca Singleton sued her employer, Young
Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) of Greater Houston, for race discrimina-
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-20480 Document: 00515241686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2019
No. 19-20480
tion under Title VII. In an impressive, detailed, twenty-three-page Memoran-
dum Opinion and Order, the district court granted the employer’s motion for
summary judgment. See Singleton v. Young Men’s Christian Association
(YMCA) of Greater Houston, No. H-17-2903, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107094
(S.D. Tex. June 26, 2019) (Lake, J.).
The district court concluded that Singleton had not established a prima
facie case in that she “was [not] replaced by someone outside of her protected
class or treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees who
were outside of her protected class.” Id. at *7−8 (citing Alkhawaldeh v. Dow
Chem. Co., 851 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2017)). “Missing from the summary
judgment record is evidence identifying any co-worker who was treated more
favorably than the plaintiff under nearly identical circumstances.” Id. at *11.
Assuming a prima facie case arguendo, the court further convincingly
explained that the employer had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for the termination, namely, “poor job performance,” id. at *15, and that
the reason or reasons given were not pretextual: “Because plaintiff fails to
present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Swirczek
and/or Lopez did not honestly believe that plaintiff’s performance was deficient
and deserving of termination, or that the defendant’s stated reason. . . was a
pretext for race discrimination, . . . the defendant is entitled to summary
judgment.” Id. at *23.
The district judge’s conclusions are well documented in his thorough
opinion. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons
explained.
2