UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30029
Summary Calendar
MANJIT S KANG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA, LSU DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY; BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge
USDC No. 98-CV-700-B
August 2, 2000
Before SMITH, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Manjit S. Kang appeals a summary judgment for
defendants in his employment discrimination and retaliation suit in
which he invoked the protections of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We affirm.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Manjit, a Louisiana State University (“LSU”) agronomy
professor, brought suit alleging that he was discriminated against
on the basis of his national origin (East Indian) when he was not
selected as the Department Head for the Department of Agronomy.
The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge, which concluded that Kang established a prima
facie case of discrimination and that LSU’s articulated
nondiscriminatory reason for its decision -- that is, other
applicants were better qualified to perform the administrative
duties required in the position -- was not pretextual. Kang
presented no evidence that (1) the reason was false or (2)
discrimination was the real reason for the employment action. See
Walton v. Bisco Industries, Inc., 119 F.3d 386, 370 (5th Cir.
1997). After reviewing the record, we agree that the evidence does
not support the conclusion that LSU’s articulated reason for
selecting a different candidate for the position was pretextual.
See id.
The district court also concluded that the conduct Kang
characterizes as retaliatory does not constitute adverse employment
action under the anti-retaliation provision of federal employment
law pursuant to this court’s opinion in Mattern v. Eastman Kodak
Co., 104 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 1997). Kang does not challenge this
conclusion on appeal, but rather argues that Mattern was wrongly
decided. This circuit has a longstanding rule that one panel may
2
not overrule another panel, even if it disagrees with the earlier
panel’s holding. See United States v. McPhail, 119 F.3d 326, 327
(5th Cir. 1997). We are therefore bound by Mattern.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment for defendants.
AFFIRMED.
3