United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT June 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30694
Summary Calendar
JOHN O’ROURKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FAIRGROUNDS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:04-CV-2101)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John O’Rourke appeals pro se the summary judgment awarded his
former employer, the Fairgrounds. (The Fairgrounds’ motion to
strike a portion of O’Rourke’s brief is GRANTED; his motion to
supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.)
O’Rourke was hired by the Fairgrounds in early 2003 to serve
as a daytime security officer. On 1 August 2003, O’Rourke’s
supervisor spotted him, off-duty but in uniform, standing in line
to place a bet. This action violated Fairgrounds’ policy
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
prohibiting security guards from “plac[ing] a bet or cash[ing] in
a ticket when they are working or in uniform”. An employee caught
violating this policy “will face immediate suspension or
termination”. The supervisor asked O’Rourke to remove his uniform
before placing a bet, but he refused, explaining he was off-duty.
The supervisor reported this incident, and O’Rourke was given a
one-day disciplinary suspension.
Several months later, in January 2004, O’Rourke resigned from
his position, refusing to sign a resignation letter. On 26 March
2004, he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that — based on the gambling
incident alone — he was discriminated against as a white male;
O’Rourke asserted that two black male employees had also gambled,
without consequence, in violation of the Fairgrounds’ policy. It
appears this assertion is incorrect, because the Fairgrounds showed
one black male was suspended for this behavior; there was no
documentation of another individual engaging in similar behavior.
Subsequently, O’Rourke filed this action, claiming race
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and defamation under Louisiana law. The
district court awarded against O’Rourke. For the race-
discrimination claim, the court concluded O’Rourke failed to state
a prima facie case of discrimination and his employer stated a
legitimate non-discriminatory purpose for his suspension. See
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). It
2
concluded O’Rourke’s defamation claim failed because he did “not
articulate[] facts essential to his cause of action under Louisiana
law”. (O’Rourke also claimed constructive discharge; summary
judgment was also awarded against this claim, which does not appear
to be raised in O’Rourke’s pro se brief to our court.)
As noted, O’Rourke appeals pro se. Pro se litigants’ briefs
are liberally construed, and we are to apply less stringent
standards to pro se litigants. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524
(5th Cir. 1995). Despite this leniency, however, pro se litigants
“must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the
standards of Rule 28” of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Id. O’Rourke’s brief fails to articulate properly the issues on
appeal. In any event, any contentions he makes lack merit.
Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, the
summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; APPELLEE’S MOTION GRANTED; APPELLANT’S MOTION DENIED
3