Dominguez v. Weiser Security Services

── Dominguez v. Weiser Security Services ── Case No.: 25-6061 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6061 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 7, 2026 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ JUAN DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 25-6061 v. WEISER SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:21-CV-00653-SLP) _________________________________ Mark Hammons, Hammons, Hurst & Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Nathan L. Whatley, McAfee & Taft, A Professional Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________ Before HARTZ, KELLY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ When Weiser Security Services fired Juan Dominguez in June 2020 it claimed he had breached company protocols and shirked his duties relating to its COVID policies. In the days prior to his termination, Dominguez reported his supervisor for allegedly giving preferential treatment to female employees. Dominguez believes  Appellate Case: 25-6061 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2 Weiser fired him in retaliation for that report and insists its performance criticisms are pretextual. He sued Weiser for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted Weiser’s motion for summary judgment because Dominguez had not offered sufficient evidence of causation for his prima facie case. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. To prove causation on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show either that the decisionmaker on the adverse employment action knew of his protected activity, or that a person harboring retaliatory animus knew and used the decisionmaker as a cat’s paw. Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160, 1176 (10th Cir. 2007). Dominguez has done neither. Instead, he invites the factfinder to fill in the gaps with speculation about what his supervisor and branch manager knew. The evidentiary bar at this stage is low, but it is still Dominguez’s to hurdle. He has not, and the district court correctly granted summary judgment for Weiser. I. Background A. Factual Background Weiser Security Services is a contract security company. In 2018, Halliburton Company engaged Weiser to provide security services at its location in Duncan, Oklahoma. Around that time, Weiser hired Juan Dominguez as a guard and supervisor with responsibility for overseeing day shift security officers at the Duncan 2  Appellate Case: 25-6061 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3 site. 1 As part of his duties, Dominguez was expected to provide medical and safety- related training to the officers under his charge. Dominguez reported to Weiser’s site manager, Joseph Yates, who reported to Mike Strickland, a Weiser branch manager based in Fort Worth, Texas. At all relevant times, Halliburton’s securi