Joe Ballard v. Wiley Albright

Opinion

___________

No. 95-2581 ___________

Joe Ballard, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Wiley Albright, Chairman, * Airport Commission; Newport, * Jackson County, Arkansas; Terry * Appeal from the United States Dillon, Commissioner; Burton * District Court for the Ford, Commissioner; Ralph Sink, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Commissioner; Wayne Beard, * Mayor; Kenneth Thaxton, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioner, originally sued * as "Ken Taxton"; City of * Newport, Arkansas; Newport * Airport Commission, * * Appellees. *

Submitted: January 23, 1996

Filed: January 26, 1996 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe Ballard appeals from the final judgment entered in the district court1 dismissing his action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623. We affirm.

1 The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Following a bench trial, the district court found that, while Ballard had established a prima facie case of discrimination, defendants had advanced unrebutted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Ballard's termination, namely, Ballard's failure adequately to perform his job as airport manager. We review the district court's findings for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Tuttle v. Henry J. Kaiser Co., 921 F.2d 183, 186 (8th Cir. 1990). After carefully reviewing the record on appeal and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in its determination, and thus properly entered judgment for defendants. See Richmond v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1992) (poor job performance is valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination). We reject Ballard's argument that the district court erred in failing to apply a "mixed-motives" analysis to his case, because Ballard did not present enough evidence of a discriminatory component to meet the threshold showing required for such an analysis. See Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 780 (8th Cir. 1995); Radabaugh v. Zip Feed Mills, Inc., 997 F.2d 444, 448 (8th Cir. 1993).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-