Barlow v. Caddo Commty Actn

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 7, 2001
• Docket: 00-30609
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 00-30609 Summary Calendar _______________

RALPH BARLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CADDO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants,

CADDO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC., AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Dist. Ct. No. 96-CV-2593 _________________________ May 4, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, AFFIRMED. and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ralph Barlow, a white male, appeals a judgment in favor of Caddo Community Ac- tion Agency, Inc. after a bench trial in his dis- crimination suit under title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Barlow argues that the district court erred in refusing to apply the mixed- motive analysis of Price Waterhouse v. Hop- kins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

That argument has no merit. “Before the Price Waterhouse methodology can be em- ployed, plaintiff bears the ‘burden of persuasion on the issue of whether [improper factors] played a part in the employment discrimination.” Mooney v. Aramco Servs Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1217 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 246). In two excellent, well-reasoned opinions, the district court made several findings of fact and credibility determinations supporting its decision that no improper motive existed for the termination, precluding any mixed-motive analysis. We cannot say that those findings and determinations are clearly erroneous.1 1 (...continued) the defendant intentionally discriminated * against the plaintiff. On review, this court Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be must therefore decide whether the ultimate published and is not precedent except under the finding of discrimination by the district limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. court was clearly erroneous. A finding is 47.5.4. clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court 1 As we have explained, on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been I]n a Title VII action that has been fully made. tried on the merits, such that the district court has before it all the necessary evidence Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d 438 (5th to make the ultimate finding of dis- Cir. 2000) (quoting Davis v. Yazoo Co. Welfare crimination, the factual inquiry is whether Dep’t, 942 F.2d 884, 886 (5th Cir. 1991)). We (continued...) have no such conviction in this case.