IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 95-50601
___________________
ELEANOR TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MCLENNAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DENNIS MICHAELS, Dr.,
DEBORAH GARRETT, Dr., RICHARD CORONADO, Mr.,
MIKE JONES, Mr.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(W-94-CV-288)
_________________________________________________________________
June 26, 1996
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Plaintiff-Appellant Eleanor Taylor ("Taylor") appeals the
district court's grant of Defendants-Appellees' motions for summary
judgment and dismissal of Taylor's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, 1985, Title VII, and Texas state claims of intentional
infliction of mental anguish and section 451.001 of the Texas Labor
Code. After considering the parties' briefs and argument, and
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
after reviewing the record on appeal, we affirm substantially on
the basis of the district court's thorough and well-documented
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Specifically, we find that summary judgment is appropriate for
the following reasons:
1. Race Discrimination and Retaliation: Taylor fails to
demonstrate that Defendants-Appellees' proffered reasons for her
termination are pretextual.
2. Sex Discrimination: Taylor fails to establish a prima
facie case because she was replaced by another female, and she
fails to show that Defendants-Appellees' articulated reasons for
her termination are pretextual.
3. First Amendment Free Speech: Taylor's complaints were
not of "public concern," but were personal in nature and not
intended to protect the public interest of discrimination free work
places. Moreover, Taylor's speech interest is outweighed by
Defendants-Appellees' interest in efficient management. Finally,
Taylor fails to establish a causal connection between her
termination and her speech.
4. Due Process: Taylor fails to establish a liberty
interest because her allegations do not rise to the level of
creating a "badge of infamy," which would destroy her ability to
obtain other employment. Furthermore, the evidence establishes
that Taylor received sufficient notice of the reasons for her
2
termination, and that she did not request a post-termination
hearing.
5. Workers' Compensation: Taylor fails to demonstrate a
causal link between her filing of a workers' compensation claim for
inhalation of toxic fumes and her termination. Several other
employees filed claims for the same incident and were not
terminated.
6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Taylor's
allegations are not "extreme and outrageous," for they occurred
entirely within a normal employment dispute. Thus, Taylor failed
to prove an element of intentional infliction of emotional distress
under Texas law.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3