United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 21, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30634
EDWARD T. GRAPPE, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana
98-CV-2060
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Edward Grappe (Grappe) appeals from the judgment of
the district court in favor of appellee Kansas City Southern
Railway Company with respect to his Title VII claim of retaliatory
discharge. Grappe also appeals the district court’s award of
attorneys’ fees on his successful action to enforce the decision of
the Public Law Board No. 6160 (the “PLB”). After a careful review
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
of the record, the briefs, and a consideration of the oral
arguments presented upon submission, we affirm in all respects the
judgment of the district court for the following reasons.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to
apply offensive collateral estoppel to the findings of the
Board for the purposes of Grappe’s Title VII suit for
retaliatory discharge. The issue in the Title VII claim
before the district court and the PLB opinion entered under
the collective bargaining agreement were not identical. Given
the disparate legal standards and divergent factual inquiries
of the two proceedings, collateral estoppel was not
applicable. Copeland v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 47 F.3d
1415, 1422 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, because different
policies underlie the proceedings before the Board and the
Title VII action before the court, collateral estoppel is not
available. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36,
94 S.Ct. 1011 (1974); McDonald v. City of West Branch, 466
U.S. 284, 290, 104 S.Ct. 1799, 1803 (1984).
2. We find no merit to the claim that the district court used a
wrong standard in evaluating Grappe’s retaliation claim. The
district court repeatedly referenced the proper reasonable
belief standard. Given the district court’s unchallenged
findings that Grappe knew his allegations were false and that
Grappe fabricated his story to retaliate against his co-
2
workers, the court could have and did properly find incredible
Grappe’s testimony that he believed he was the victim of
sexual harassment.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing
the introduction of exhibits 1 and 2 inasmuch as the decision
maker was aware of and considered the information in such
exhibits in making his decision to terminate Grappe.
4. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court’s failure
to award the full attorneys’ fees claimed by Grappe for his
enforcement action. The proceeding was overwhelmingly
dominated by Grappe’s unsuccessful Title VII claim. In
addition, trial counsel’s affidavits (“B”, “C” and “D”) in
support of attorneys’ fees, fail to mention whether entries
relating to the unsuccessful Title VII claims were eliminated
from the billing request. Only two billing entries in exhibit
“A” relate exclusively to the enforcement of the PLB opinion.
The district court allowed recovery of the entire amount for
these two entries and apportioned all other requests. Our
review of the record convinces us that the district court was
generous in its award and did not abuse its discretion in
failing to award Grappe the amounts he requested.
AFFIRMED.
3