Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
El Paso Police Department officers Rose Ibarbo and Ashley Pagitt accused Lieutenant John Surface of conditioning favorable treatment over a period of years on submission to his sexual advances. Ibarbo also alleged that Sergeant Adan Chavez sent her text messages soliciting sexual favors on Surface’s behalf.
The allegations prompted an investigation that resulted in Surface’s and Chavez’s arrests and terminations. Surface and Chavez then sued Police Chief Pete Pacillas and the City of El Paso, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and violations of various constitutional provisions. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. After reviewing the district-court briefing, complaint, record, and appellate briefing and hearing oral argument, the panel agreed that no rational jury could find for Surface or Chavez on any of their claims.
Because no genuine dispute of material fact remained, the court held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The per curiam opinion did not separately analyze the elements of the plaintiffs’ Title VII or constitutional claims.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment against both officers on all asserted discrimination, retaliation, and constitutional claims.
- The panel concluded that the record would not permit a rational jury to find for either plaintiff.
- The unpublished per curiam opinion resolved the appeal without separately discussing each claim’s elements.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that employment-discrimination and retaliation claims cannot proceed to trial when the evidence, viewed through the summary-judgment record, would not allow a rational jury to find for the employees. Here, that conclusion disposed of every claim arising from the officers’ terminations following the department’s sexual-harassment investigation.
Because the opinion is unpublished and offers little claim-specific reasoning, its broader usefulness lies primarily in its application of the summary-judgment threshold to the record before the court.