## Facts

- Ramon Zamora, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Mexican origin, worked for Elite Logistics as a warehouse employee in Kansas.
- After Elite discovered possible work-authorization problems among employees, it increased verification efforts and reviewed information tied to employees’ Social Security numbers.
- Elite identified a discrepancy associated with Zamora’s Social Security number and suspended him until he produced documentation showing authorization to work in the United States.
- Zamora provided documentation and was reinstated.
- After returning, Zamora sought an apology from management regarding the suspension and the handling of the documentation issue.
- Elite terminated Zamora’s employment soon after, citing his conduct surrounding the apology request and his alleged refusal to return to work.
- Zamora sued under Title VII, alleging race and national-origin discrimination based on the suspension and termination.

## Issues

1. Whether Elite’s suspension of Zamora pending proof of work authorization constituted race or national-origin discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether Zamora produced sufficient evidence that Elite’s stated reason for terminating him (insubordination/refusal to work tied to his apology demand) was pretext for Title VII discrimination.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Elite on both claims.
- On the suspension claim, the en banc court was evenly divided; the district court’s judgment was affirmed by operation of law without an en banc majority rationale.
- On the termination claim, the court held Zamora failed to raise a genuine dispute that Elite’s proffered reason was pretext for discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, once an employer offers a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the plaintiff must produce evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the reason is pretext and that discrimination was the real motive.
- At summary judgment, disagreement with the employer’s business judgment, without evidence the stated reason is unworthy of belief, does not create a triable issue under Title VII.
- In the work-authorization verification context, employer actions taken to address authorization concerns are not, by themselves, Title VII violations; liability still requires evidence of race or national-origin motivation.
- When an en banc federal appellate court is equally divided, the lower court’s judgment is affirmed, and no controlling en banc rule is established on the disputed question.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer because Zamora did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the stated basis for his termination was a pretext for race or national-origin discrimination, and the suspension claim was affirmed due to an evenly divided en banc court.


Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 478 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc)