United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 8, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30465
Summary Calendar
FRANK ROGER HORNSBY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS COMPANY; ET AL
Defendants
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS COMPANY
Defendant-Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge
3:97-CV-237-B
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Frank Roger Hornsby (“Hornsby”) appeals
from a bench trial in which the district court denied relief on
his age and gender discrimination in employment claims against
Defendant-Appellee Enterprise Products Company (“Enterprise”).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
The district court found that Hornsby “failed to prove that
Enterprise’s articulated reasons for its actions are false or
that sex and/or age discrimination was actually the motivating
factor for its employment decision.” The district court also
found that Enterprise provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for terminating Hornsby.
“The standard of review for a bench trial is well
established: findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and
legal issues are reviewed de novo.” Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac.
Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 601 (5th Cir. 2000).
There is ample evidence in the record to support the view
that Hornsby was fired for his inappropriate and unwarranted
threat of his fellow employee. Enterprise presented evidence
that Hornsby telephoned a subordinate, Deborah Craft (“Craft”),
and threatened her after learning that her scheduled vacation
would prevent him from taking vacation at the time which he had
scheduled. Hornsby denied threatening Craft, but he admitted
that he had called her, that he was upset about the vacation
situation, and that he had been drinking prior to making the
phone call.
In addition to his phone call to Craft, Hornsby had also
previously called a different employee, Karen Ayo, and made
statements which upset her.
Because the record supports the district court’s finding
2
that Enterprise fired Hornsby for a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason, we find that the district court did not
err in holding that Hornsby’s claims were without merit. See
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141-43
(2000).
We therefore reject all arguments presented by Appellant
Hornsby and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
3