United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30494
Summary Calendar
GARY LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee,
versus
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEITH DEBARBARIS; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
CLARENCE WETHERN; ANTHONY LANASA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross
Appellees,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:01-CV-1211-M
USDC No. 2:01-CV-2628-M
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs, Police Officers Gary Lee, Clarence Wethern, and
Anthony LaNasa, and Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
City”), appeal from the district court’s judgment awarding the
officers back pay on their Fair Labor Standards Act claim and
rejecting Lee’s retaliation claim. We affirm all rulings of the
district court.
The City contests the district court’s finding that the
officers were entitled to back pay, insisting that such finding was
not supported by the record. That finding, however, was supported
by the officers’ trial testimony. Given the deference we afford
the district court’s credibility determinations and the fact that
the testimony supports the ruling, the district court’s finding on
the matter is plausible and not clearly erroneous. See Barfield v.
Madison County, Mississippi, 212 F.3d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 2000);
Mireles v. Frio Foods, Inc., 899 F.2d 1407, 1413 (5th Cir. 1990).
The officers assert that the district court erroneously
admitted the hearsay testimony of Sgt. Mark Mulla. The officers
argue that they were prejudiced by this evidentiary ruling, because
the court relied heavily on Mulla’s testimony in reducing by one-
half their compensable time. The district court, however, based
the amount of compensation it awarded the officers on the December
2000 settlement reached between the New Orleans Police Department
and the City’s Civil Service Commission, which authorized one-half
hour per work day of compensable time for canine officers.
Consequently, even if we assume without granting that the district
court erroneously admitted Mulla’s testimony, that error was
harmless. See FED. R. CIV. P. 61; Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish
2
Council--President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 292 (5th Cir. 2002).
Finally, Lee argues that the district court erred in rejecting
his retaliation claim on the basis that he did not suffer an
adverse employment action. Lee did not establish, however, that
his transfer to the Tactical Unit resulted in the loss of
compensation, duties, or benefits. Standing alone, his subjective
belief that he was transferred to a less prestigious position is
insufficient to prove an adverse employment action. See Pegram v.
Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 283 (5th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
3