Instructions-
Don’t spent too much time on facts, keep it short and simple. Don’t get hang up on dates and monetary amounts.
There should be 4 stages of a case brief. The stages are-
1st – thought, the facts of the case- what is the dispute? Why a person suing another?
Next- what is the issue of law – how’s that relate to what we study?
3rd- the decision/ the holding of the case- what did the court decide? Final- legal reasoning behind that decision.
The Case- Lewis v. Twenty-First Century Bean Processing United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 638 Fed.Appx. 701 (2016).
Background and Facts : Twenty-First Century Bean Processing hired Anthony Lewis, a forty-seven-year-old African American male, for a warehouse position, subject to a thirty-day probationary period. At the end of the period, Twenty-First Century evaluated Lewis’s performance to determine whether he would remain an employee. The employer decided not to retain Lewis, who then filed a suit in a federal district court against Twenty-First Century. Lewis alleged discrimination on the basis of race and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Twenty-First Century filed a motion for summary judgment. As evidence, the employer presented proof concerning Lewis’s job performance during the probationary period. The court granted the motion. Lewis appealed.
In the Language of the Court : Robert E. BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. When a plaintiff alleges discrimination but offers no direct evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. [This requires a showing that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class—a person defined by certain criteria, including race or age; (2) the plaintiff applied and was qualified for the job at issue; (3) the plaintiff was rejected by the employer; and (4) the employer filled the position with someone not in a protected class.] If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. If the defendant satisfies that burden, the employee would bear the burden to prove the defendant’s actions were discriminatory, which the employee could do by showing defendant’s proffered reason is a pretext for illegal discrimination. [Emphasis added.] Mr. Lewis alleges age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Mr. Lewis had not presented any direct evidence of discrimination [and] the court determined that Mr. Lewis had not established a prima facie case because he had failed to provide evidence that his work was satisfactory. In our view, that conclusion was proper. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Twenty-First Century on the age discrimination claim. Mr. Lewis also alleges race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Again finding no direct evidence of discrimination, the court assumed without deciding that Mr. Lewis had established a prima facie case of race discrimination. Thus, the burden shifted to Twenty-First Century to show a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Mr. Lewis. As evidence of a nondiscriminatory purpose, Twenty-First Century pointed out that Mr. Lewis had missed too many work days, slept at work, used his personal cellphone at work, and reacted argumentatively when warned about his cellphone usage. After finding that any one of these policy violations could serve as a nondiscriminatory reason for the firing, the court placed the burden on Mr. Lewis to show that Twenty-First Century’s explanation was pretextual [not legitimate]. The district court concluded that Mr. Lewis was unable to meet this burden, and we agree.
Decision and Remedy: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment. Of the twenty-five work days in the probationary period, Lewis was absent for four days, found sleeping twice, and seen several times texting and talking on his personal phone. When informed that this use of a phone was against company policy, Lewis argued with his superior.
