UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10541
Summary Calendar
__________________
LINDA S. SHAMMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NEIMAN-MARCUS/NEIMAN-MARCUS
COMPANY/THE NEIMAN MARCUS
GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
(3:93-CV-636-D)
______________________________________________
July 26, 1996
Before KING, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Linda Shammas appeals a district court judgment
dismissing with prejudice her claims for sexual harassment and
retaliation under Title VII against appellee Neiman Marcus.
Shammas argues that the district court clearly erred in finding
against her on the issues of quid pro quo discrimination, hostile
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
environment sexual harassment, and retaliation.
With respect to Shammas's appeal from the adverse rulings on
quid pro quo and retaliation, we find the evidence was clearly
sufficient to support the district court's findings. In
particular, the district court did not credit Shammas's testimony
that Bullard gave Shammas a disciplinary warning because she told
him she would no longer endure the sexual harassment. Given that
much of the evidence indicated that Shammas was terminated for
insubordination, the district court did not clearly err in finding
that Shammas's disciplinary warning and subsequent termination were
not the result of her refusal to acquiesce in quid pro quo sexual
harassment or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity
under Title VII.
Shammas also asserts that the district court erred in finding
against her on her claim for hostile environment sexual harassment.
As much as some cases, and this case in particular, may tempt us to
substitute our findings for those of the district court, we adhere
to the doctrine that this type of substitution is improper when the
district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of
the record viewed in its entirety. See Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511,
84 L. Ed.2d 518 (1985). After carefully reviewing the record, we
cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding the
complained-of remarks were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to
establish Shammas's hostile environment sexual harassment claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2