-------------------------

Plaintiff's race discrimination claim fails where he fails to show any connection between a supervisor's alleged racist comment and his termination.

Young v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 468 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. November 9, 2006) - This is a Title VII race discrimination action alleging wrongful termination. Dillon operates King Soopers grocery stores. Everett Young, who is African American, worked as a retail investigator. Young was terminated after a security tape showed him leaving work at 8:00 p.m. when his shift did not end until 10:30 p.m. and he put on his time records that he had worked until 10:30 p.m. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of Dillon and the Tenth Circuit affirms based on the basic principle that Young failed to show that the decisionmakers did not honestly believe their proffered reason for his termination (that he sought to be paid for time he did not work). Young's supervisor, Jon Lesley, was not a decisonmaker, but he conducted the initial investigation and provided the information to the decisionmakers. Young presented evidence of racist comments that Lesley had allegedly made about others. But this evidence is hearsay and therefore cannot be considered on summary judgment. However, Young testified that he heard one comment. He heard Lesley refer to an African American store manager as a "monkey." But the Tenth Circuit holds that based on its precedent, this comment directed at someone else is insufficient:

Dillon argues that, even if a discriminatory bias is proven with respect to one of defendant's employees, there must be some evidence in the record suggesting that the plaintiff's termination at issue was infected by such bias; under this test, Dillon adds, Mr. Young's claim fails because he has not pointed to any evidence in the record suggesting that Mr. Lesley's alleged animus affected Mr. Young's review and termination.

     Like the district court, we feel constrained by our precedent to agree. In Rea v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1450 (10th Cir. 1994), this Court expressly held that a plaintiff who fails to show any connection between her supervisor's discriminatory comments about another employee and her own termination, without more, fails to satisfy the burden imposed by Congress under Title VII of proving that the adverse action was caused by unlawful discriminatory animus. Id. at 1457; see also English v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 248 F.3d 1002, 1010 (10th Cir. 2001).