IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20729
(Summary Calendar)
EDDIE LEE ROWE, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WALGREEN COMPANY;
TONY FRIZZELL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-95-3739)
February 27, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this age and race employment discrimination case,
Plaintiff-Appellant Eddie Lee Rowe, Sr. appeals the “take nothing”
summary judgment granted by the district court. Specifically, Rowe
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
complains that summary judgment was improvidently granted in the
face of evidence purportedly creating genuine issues of material
fact regarding disparate treatment, pretext for termination,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the status of his
last supervisor as an “employer.” In broad overview, Rowe asserts
that the district court weighed some of the evidence and ignored
some of it, implying that the totality of the summary judgment
evidence submitted by all parties was sufficient to create genuine
issues of material fact and thus preclude summary judgment.
Our de novo review of the record in this case, the arguments
of counsel as professionally and clearly presented in their
respective briefs, and the detailed analysis of facts and law as
set forth in the district court’s Opinion on Summary Judgment,
convinces us that the trial court indeed “got it right.” Any
issues of fact created by differences in the summary judgment
evidence are either not genuine or not material. To the extent
that Rowe makes a prima facie case of race discrimination (none is
made for age discrimination), it is soundly rebutted by a plethora
of evidence of non-pretextual, valid reasons for the employment
actions taken by Walgreen supervisors. And Rowe’s assertions of
pretext are feckless. Rowe’s protestations to the contrary
notwithstanding, Walgreen and its supervisory personnel obviously
bent over backwards in repeated efforts to salvage Rowe as a store
manager. Indeed, it defies logic that a national retailer like
Walgreen would go to the lengths and employ the subterfuges alleged
2
by Rowe to demote or constructively discharge its only black store
manager in the entire Houston division, particular when that
manager is also over 40 years of age.
It suffices that the totality of the summary judgment evidence
does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to either race
or age discrimination, constructive discharge, or intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Neither does the evidence
support Rowe’s contention that, legally, Defendant-Appellant
Frizzell was Rowe’s employer, separate and apart from Walgreen,
which was their common employer.
In sum, our plenary review leads us inevitably to the same
conclusions as those reached by the district court and explicated
in lucid detail in its Opinion on Summary Judgment. No useful
purpose would be served by a reiteration here of the reasoning and
authorities contained in the district court’s explanation of the
basis of its grant of summary judgment, so we elect not to write
separately but rather to adopt by reference the opinion of the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
3