United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 11, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-10911
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JESSIE CROSS; IDA BELL HARGROVE; SHELANA SMITH; CHRISTINA SMITH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FFP OPERATING PARTNERS, LP, a/k/a DRIVERS TRAVELMART; KATHY
REYNOLDS; KATHY GRIFFIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:99-CV-00160
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s final judgment in favor
of defendants in this race discrimination suit brought under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Plaintiffs
alleged that the General Manager of Driver’s Travelmart, Kathy
Griffin, engaged in disparate treatment discrimination in
connection with their termination, and created a hostile work
environment. The district court granted defendants’ motion for
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, and
conducted a bench trial on the disparate treatment termination
claims. At issue in the bench trial was the termination of four
African-American female employees, whom the defendants argue were
terminated for cause (plaintiffs Ida Bell Hargrove, Christina Smith
and Shelana Smith violated the company’s zero-tolerance attendance
policies; Jessie Cross was terminated for theft). The district
court found that the plaintiffs had presented no credible evidence
of discriminatory motive in their termination, nor was there any
credible evidence that the employer treated these employees
differently from other, white employees. Essentially, the district
court found that the evidence established Kathy Griffin to be a
tough woman to work for; she terminated many employees of all races
and genders and applied the company’s policies in a racially non-
discriminatory manner. In fact, the district court noted that
under Griffin’s supervision, one hundred employees were terminated
for violations of the attendance policy, only eight of whom were
African American; similarly, twelve employees were terminated by
Griffin for theft, and only two of those were African-American.
The plaintiffs argue that two errors by the district court
warrant reversal: first, that the district court erred in refusing
to consider proffered statistical evidence, consisting of
defendants’ employee roster, that allegedly demonstrates a pattern
of discrimination; second, that the district court clearly erred in
finding that the terminations at issue were not racially motivated.
After reviewing the briefs, the record, and the district court’s
opinion, we disagree.
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, the district court did
consider the employee roster; it simply rejected the plaintiffs’
characterization of the roster’s information. The plaintiffs
relied on the roster to argue that seven African-American employees
were terminated within a matter of days and that Griffin hired no
African-Americans in the following thirteen months. The district
court explicitly considered the information listed on the roster
and found that the roster established that the plaintiffs were not
treated any differently from many other employees who were
terminated by Griffin. The roster failed to provide any evidence
or indicia of intentional racial discrimination in termination.
Thus the allegation of error in the district court’s treatment of
this exhibit is meritless.
With respect to the second alleged error, the district court’s
thorough opinion reveals the court’s careful consideration of the
credibility and weight of the evidence introduced through the
testimony of various witnesses. The district court concluded that
many witnesses offered conflicting and inconsistent testimony, were
not credible, or were only motivated by dislike of the defendant,
Kathy Griffin. The court also made factual findings, based on the
plaintiffs’ own evidence, to the effect that adverse working
conditions at the Driver’s Travelmart about which plaintiffs’
witnesses testified were experienced by all employees, not just
African Americans. In short, the plaintiffs have failed to
convince this court that the credibility and factual determinations
by the district court are in any way erroneous. After our review
of the ruling, the briefs and the record, we are not left with any
sense that a mistake has been made; the district court’s findings
are supported by the weight of the evidence.
The district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs failed to
prove intentional race discrimination in the termination of these
four women is, accordingly,
AFFIRMED.