Barlow v. Caddo Commty Actn

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________

m 00-30609
Summary Calendar
_______________

RALPH BARLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CADDO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants,

CADDO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC.,
AND
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
Dist. Ct. No. 96-CV-2593
_________________________
May 4, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, AFFIRMED.
and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ralph Barlow, a white male, appeals a
judgment in favor of Caddo Community Ac-
tion Agency, Inc. after a bench trial in his dis-
crimination suit under title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq. Barlow argues that the district
court erred in refusing to apply the mixed-
motive analysis of Price Waterhouse v. Hop-
kins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

That argument has no merit. “Before the
Price Waterhouse methodology can be em-
ployed, plaintiff bears the ‘burden of
persuasion on the issue of whether [improper
factors] played a part in the employment
discrimination.” Mooney v. Aramco Servs
Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1217 (5th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 246).
In two excellent, well-reasoned opinions, the
district court made several findings of fact and
credibility determinations supporting its
decision that no improper motive existed for
the termination, precluding any mixed-motive
analysis. We cannot say that those findings
and determinations are clearly erroneous.1
1
(...continued)
the defendant intentionally discriminated
* against the plaintiff. On review, this court
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be must therefore decide whether the ultimate
published and is not precedent except under the finding of discrimination by the district
limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. court was clearly erroneous. A finding is
47.5.4. clearly erroneous when although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court
1
As we have explained, on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been
I]n a Title VII action that has been fully made.
tried on the merits, such that the district
court has before it all the necessary evidence Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d 438 (5th
to make the ultimate finding of dis- Cir. 2000) (quoting Davis v. Yazoo Co. Welfare
crimination, the factual inquiry is whether Dep’t, 942 F.2d 884, 886 (5th Cir. 1991)). We
(continued...) have no such conviction in this case.

2