A bun propped itself atop the deli counter and declared itself lunch. It was golden. Perfectly split. Structurally sound. “Look at my form,” it said. “I’m ready to be served.” But there was no hot dog inside. All bun, no meat.
That’s Mendoza v. Dietz & Watson.
Adela Mendoza, a production employee, sued after her termination, alleging sexual-orientation discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. Dietz fired her for insubordination after she failed to follow a directive to move to a different production line when hers went down. She admitted she knew the rule: insubordination could mean discharge.
The employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason doesn’t have to be fancy. It just has to exist and be supported by the record. Here, it had weight. It had snap.
Mendoza tried to build her case around broader allegations—being “regularly singled out,” vague claims of anti-gay comments, complaints about the phrase “hey guys.” But at summary judgment, you don’t get served on presentation alone. Courts require substance. Specifics. Record citations. Something a jury can actually chew on.
As the court eloquently put it: “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”
The court found the evidence too thinly sliced to create a genuine dispute of fact. Months separated her complaint and her termination—too long for meaningful temporal proximity. She couldn’t tie her protected activity to the decisionmaker. And the alleged comments, even viewed in her favor, weren’t severe or pervasive enough to turn workplace friction into a Title VII violation.
In other words: all bun, no dog.
The structure of a discrimination case matters. Prima facie case. Legitimate reason. Pretext. But structure without evidence is just bread. The employer had documented rules, consistent enforcement, and a clear reason for termination. The plaintiff had suspicions and generalities.
Courts aren’t in the business of serving empty meals.
Employers: Consistently applied policies and contemporaneous documentation are your meat. Without them, you’re just waving a bun around and hoping no one notices what’s missing. Courts and juries, however, will notice. Employers: Consistently applied policies and contemporaneous documentation are your meat. Without them, you’re just waving a bun around and hoping no one notices what’s missing. Courts and juries, however, will notice. I don’t at all relish being in that position.
