Golie Leroy TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

Golie Leroy TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

468 F.2d 910

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 1972

Docket72-2494

StatusPublished

Cited by37 cases

This text of 468 F.2d 910 (Golie Leroy TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golie Leroy TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 468 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Terrell appeals from an adverse judgment entered in a non-jury trial in which he asserted that, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., the Company maintained a racially discriminatory promotional policy, refused to promote him to salesman, and discharged him when he sought the promotion.

Two questions are presented for review: (1) did the district judge consider the proffered statistical evidence of class discrimination on the part of Feldstein; and (2) are the district court’s findings of fact “clearly erroneous” ?

Since the answers to the interrogatories propounded by Terrell to the Company, from which the statistical exhibits were abstracted, were admitted into evidence, Terrell’s contention that the district court failed to consider this documentary evidence is without merit. Moreover, the district court’s findings of fact more than pass muster under Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Although statistical evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination is of probative value in an individual discrimination case for the purpose of- showing motive, intent, or purpose, cf. Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, Ford Division of Ford Motor Co., 8 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 1157, it is not determinative of an employer’s reason for the action taken against the individual grievant. The record contains ample evidence to support the conclusion that Terrell’s non-promotion and subsequent discharge were for no other reason than just cause. In short, Terrell fails to carry his burden of showing, as the attacking party must, that the district court’s fact findings were “clearly erroneous.” United States of America v. Reddoch and Taylor et al., etc., 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 897; see Martin v. Mercantile Financial Corp., 5 Cir. 1968, 404 F.2d 886; Seaton v. Sills, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 710.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Terrell appeals from an adverse judgment entered in a non-jury trial in which he asserted that, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq., the Company maintained a racially discriminatory promotional policy, refused to promote him to salesman, and discharged him when he sought the promotion.

Two questions are presented for review: (1) did the district judge consider the proffered statistical evidence of class discrimination on the part of Feldstein; and (2) are the district court’s findings of fact “clearly erroneous” ?

Since the answers to the interrogatories propounded by Terrell to the Company, from which the statistical exhibits were abstracted, were admitted into evidence, Terrell’s contention that the district court failed to consider this documentary evidence is without merit. Moreover, the district court’s findings of fact more than pass muster under Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Although statistical evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination is of probative value in an individual discrimination case for the purpose of- showing motive, intent, or purpose, cf. Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, Ford Division of Ford Motor Co., 8 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 1157, it is not determinative of an employer’s reason for the action taken against the individual grievant. The record contains ample evidence to support the conclusion that Terrell’s non-promotion and subsequent discharge were for no other reason than just cause. In short, Terrell fails to carry his burden of showing, as the attacking party must, that the district court’s fact findings were “clearly erroneous.” United States of America v. Reddoch and Taylor et al., etc., 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 897; see Martin v. Mercantile Financial Corp., 5 Cir. 1968, 404 F.2d 886; Seaton v. Sills, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 710.

Affirmed.

Dr. Marise S. Gottlieb, Cross-Appellee v. Tulane University of Louisiana, the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, and Dr. John J. Walsh, Individually and as Chancellor of the Tulane Medical Center, Cross-Appellants. Dr. Marise S. Gottlieb, Cross-Appellant v. Tulane University of Louisiana, the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, and Dr. John J. Walsh, Individually, and as Chancellor of the Tulane Medical Center, Cross-Appellees

809 F.2d 278 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Gottlieb v. Tulane University

809 F.2d 278 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Warren v. Halstead Industries, Inc.

613 F. Supp. 499 (M.D. North Carolina, 1985)

Taylor v. Secretary of the Army

583 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Maryland, 1984)

Christine Plemer v. Parsons-Gilbane, Etc.

713 F.2d 1127 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)

Burrows v. Chemed Corp.

567 F. Supp. 978 (E.D. Missouri, 1983)

Carol DAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAYLESS CASHWAYS, INC., Defendant-Appellee

661 F.2d 1022 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Harold L. OSBORNE, Appellant, v. Max CLELAND, Appellee

620 F.2d 195 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)

Barbara Davis v. Joseph A. Califano

613 F.2d 957 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)

Burton v. Clarksdale Police Department

488 F. Supp. 88 (N.D. Mississippi, 1980)

Green Miller, Jr. v. Lester Poretsky

595 F.2d 780 (D.C. Circuit, 1978)

Randolph v. United States Elevator Corp.

452 F. Supp. 1120 (S.D. Florida, 1978)

Buffington v. Defense Mapping Agcy.

435 F. Supp. 816 (E.D. Missouri, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golie-leroy-terrell-plaintiff-appellant-v-the-feldstein-company-inc-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack