UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-40733
Summary Calendar
MARK DAVID SARFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CONTINENTAL EXPRESS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
CA-G-94-731
April 26, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant sued his former employer under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming retaliation for complaints he
made of sexual harassment directed against him and discrimination
based upon his sex. The district court granted summary judgment
for Defendant. Sarff appeals and we affirm.
On appeal Appellant contends only that he was discharged
because he is male; he has abandoned his retaliation claim. He
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
contends that the district court did not consider all of the
evidence before granting summary judgment, that the district court
erred in ruling that he failed to establish causal nexus which is
required to state a prima facia case of sex discrimination and that
he failed to establish that the employer’s stated reason was
pretextual. Our review of the record makes clear that none of
these issues are meritorious. The district court correctly
determined that, long before Appellant reported any sexual
harassment, he had experienced a lengthy series of customer
complaints and had been placed on warning by his employer that any
single further violation of the employer’s policies would result in
termination. He does not deny that his conduct thereafter violated
company policies. There is, therefore, no issue of fact as to the
reason why he was terminated. Nor is there any showing that his
termination was related to his sex as opposed to his poor job
performance and violation of company policy.
Appellant admits that he must create an issue of fact that
Continental treated similarly situated females more favorably than
it treated him. His evidence simply has not done so. He has no
evidence of disparate treatment. Women were disciplined when
company policy was violated.
AFFIRMED.
2