UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60483
Summary Calendar
DAVID A. BECKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
VERSUS
XEROX CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(1:97-CV-140-GR)
July 30, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee David A. Beckett appeals
the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him in this
employment discrimination suit. Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
Xerox Corp. challenges the district court’s decision not to award
costs to Xerox. On both issues, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
A.
Beckett was terminated by Xerox for allegedly exposing himself
to a customer’s female employee. Beckett sued Xerox claiming
breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
and discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Xerox. Beckett now appeals.
The district court correctly dismissed Beckett’s claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Beckett did not
allege facts that could constitute intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The facts he alleges at most constitute a
simple employment dispute and do not come close to the egregious
conduct required for this tort. See, e.g., Grayson v. General
Motors Corp., 950 F. Supp. 170, 175 (S. D. Miss. 1996) (“In order
to prevail on a claim of intentional infliction of emotion
distress, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that the conduct
complained of evoke[s] outrage or revulsion.”); see also White v.
Walker, 950 F.2d 972, 978 (5th Cir. 1991). In addition, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit
Beckett to amend his complaint for a second time when Beckett’s
motion was filed long after the deadline for amending pleadings.
See Fed R. Civ. P. 16.
The district court also correctly granted Xerox summary
judgment on Beckett’s ADA claims. Beckett presented no evidence
that Xerox discriminated against him on the basis of his alleged
disability of anxiety and depression. At the same time, the
evidence clearly demonstrates that Xerox held a good faith belief
that Beckett exposed himself to a female employee of a Xerox
customer.
Finally, Beckett does not challenge on appeal the district
2
court’s grant of summary judgment on his breach of contract claim.
B.
A district court’s decision on costs is reviewed under the
abuse of discretion standard. American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey,
133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Xerox has not convinced
us that the district court abused its discretion in declining to
award costs to Xerox, we will not disturb the district court’s
ruling.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.
3