IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10551
Summary Calendar
DANNY HENSLEY; STEVE P. WINSLOW;
VIRGINIA FLIPPIN, on behalf of
the estate of Lucian Doyle Flippin,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-646-M
--------------------
October 26, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs Danny Hensley, Steve P. Winslow, and Virginia
Flippin, on behalf of the estate of her late husband, Lucian
Doyle (Mickey) Flippin, appeal the summary judgment dismissal of
their claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), against Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
(“Home Depot”). The district court dismissed the claims of
Hensley and Winslow, who resigned their positions with Home
Depot, on the ground that they had failed to adduce evidence
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-10551
-2-
sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that they were
constructively discharged. The district court dismissed
Flippin’s claim for failure to establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact on which a jury could find that
the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by Home
Depot for Flippin’s discharge was a pretext for age
discrimination.
The plaintiffs first contend that the district court
improperly applied the evidentiary framework of McDonnell-Douglas
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), to this ADEA matter. Although
Mconnell-Douglas was a racial discrimination case decided under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have endorsed its
burden-shifting approach as “an evidentiary procedure that
allocates the burden of production and establishes an orderly
presentation of proof.” Bodenheimer v. P.P.G. Indus., Inc., 5
F.3d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1993). It has long been a staple of our
ADEA jurisprudence. See Jackson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 648
F.2d 225, 230 (5th Cir. Unit B June 1981) (“It is well settled
that the analysis articulated in [McDonnell-Douglas] is
applicable to ADEA cases.”). We find no error in the district
court’s utilization of this useful and time-tested framework.
Turning to the district court’s resolution of the
plaintiffs’ claims, we perceive error only to the extent that the
district court dismissed Winslow’s claim based on a failure to
make a showing of constructive discharge. Winslow made the
requisite showing on this issue, albeit by a narrow margin.
However, after a thorough review of the record and the briefs, we
No. 01-10551
-3-
affirm the dismissal of Winslow’s claim on the alternative ground
noted by the district court, as Winslow failed to make a prima
facie showing that his demotion was motivated by age
discrimination. As to Hensley and Flippin, we affirm the
judgment below essentially for the reasons articulated by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.