IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30077
CLEVELAND FONTENOT, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(96-CV-416)
May 18, 1999
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.*
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:
Cleveland Fontenot, Jr. (Fontenot) appeals from a summary
judgment granted to his former employer Albemarle Corp. (Albemarle)
for federal and state claims related to the termination of his
employment. We affirm.
Facts and Proceedings Below
Fontenot began working for Ethyl Corp. (Ethyl) in 1971. In
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
1994, Ethyl spun off its chemicals division into a separate
corporate entity which became Albemarle. Fontenot moved to
Albemarle shortly after its inception. In 1995, Albemarle
conducted an internal review of its organizational structure and
decided to transfer Fontenot’s duties (purchasing) to another
department. Fontenot’s former position was eliminated and Fontenot
was terminated. Fontenot was then fifty-three years old.
Believing he had been unfairly discriminated against,
Fontenot, represented by counsel, sued Albemarle. Fontenot’s
complaint, filed in April 1996, raised claims under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et.
seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29
U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq., and their Louisiana statutory analogues
(collectively, the discrimination claims), as well as other
undefined state tort claims, resulting in physical, mental, and
financial damages (the state law claims).
Discussion
As a threshold matter, we must determine whether we have
jurisdiction over this appeal. Federal courts are duty bound to
determine their own jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte if
necessary. See, e.g., Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th
Cir.1996) (recognizing court’s obligation to inquire into its own
jurisdiction, even where parties fail to raise the issue).
With limited exceptions not relevant here, “[t]he courts of
appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction [only] of appeals from all
final decisions of the district courts of the United States[.]” 28
2
U.S.C. § 1291 (West 1999); Moreau v. Harris County, 158 F.3d 241,
244 (5th Cir. 1998). The question before this Court is whether the
judgment sought to be appealed here is final within the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
“A final judgment is one that