UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20947
Summary Calendar
DONNIE D. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BAKER GLASS COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CA H 96-565)
July 1, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donnie D. Smith (“Smith”) appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the appellee, contending that the
district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 621 et al. After having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
record, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible
error. Smith did not present, as required under the familiar
burden-shifting framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973),
Atkinson v. Denton Publishing Co., 84 F.3d 144, 148 (5th Cir.
1996), evidence that would support a reasonable inference that the
appellee-employer’s proffered reasons for Smith’s discharge were
pretext or that age actually motivated the discharge. See Hall v.
Gillman Inc., 81 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1996); Rhodes v. Guiberson
Oil Tools, 75 F.3d 989, 993 (5th Cir. 1996). The correctness of
the decision resulting in the adverse employment action is not
relevant to the demonstration of a discriminatory motive, Jeffries
v. Harris County Community Action Ass’n, 615 F.2d 1025, 1036 (5th
Cir. 1980); Pesterfield v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 941 F.2d 437,
443 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing cases), and Smith failed to demonstrate
that age discrimination, rather than the employer-appellee’s belief
that Smith had violated company policy, was the basis of his
discharge.
2