Darius J. Whitson v. Marriott Pavillon , 49 F. App'x 655 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    Nos. 02-1478/2334
    ___________
    Darius J. Whitson, Sr.                 *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    *    Appeal from the United States
    v.                               *    District Court for the
    *    Eastern District of Missouri.
    Marriott Pavillon Hotel; Marriott       *
    Hotel Services, Inc.; Marriott         *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    International, Inc.; MII Conference    *
    Center, Inc.; Marriott Greenbelt        *
    Hotel Services, Inc.,                  *
    *
    Appellees.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 28, 2002
    Filed: October 31, 2002
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Darius Whitson brought suit against various Marriott defendants ["Marriott"]
    alleging race and age discrimination after he was denied employment as a
    housekeeping aide. The magistrate judge1 granted Marriott's motion to dismiss the
    race discrimination claim and Marriott's motion for summary judgment on the age
    discrimination claim. The magistrate judge also denied Whitson's motion for
    sanctions and fees and granted Marriott's motion for court costs and attorney fees.
    Whitson appeals these rulings. We affirm.
    We review de novo the magistrate judge's dismissal of a race-discrimination
    claim and its grant of summary judgment in an age discrimination claim. Garner v.
    Arvin Indus., Inc., 
    77 F.3d 255
    , 257 (8th Cir. 1996). Upon review, we agree with the
    magistrate judge that Whitson did not exhaust his administrative remedies with
    respect to the race discrimination claim because he did not bring an EEOC charge
    alleging race discrimination. Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 
    21 F.3d 218
     (8th Cir. 1994). We also find that Whitson failed to prove his prima facie case
    of age discrimination because he was not qualified for the position. See McDonnell
    Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    , 802 (1973); Schiltz v. Burlington N. R.R., 
    115 F.3d 1407
    , 1412 (8th Cir. 1997). His claims were therefore properly dismissed.
    We review the magistrate judge's award of court costs and attorney fees for
    abuse of discretion. Lee-Thomas, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 
    275 F.3d 702
    , 708
    (8th Cir. 2002); Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care, 
    187 F.3d 853
    , 857 (8th Cir. 1999).
    Court costs are awarded to the prevailing party as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P.
    54(d)(1). In order to deter baseless age discrimination suits, attorney fees may be
    assessed if the defendant establishes that the plaintiff litigated in bad faith. E.E.O.C.
    v. Hendrix Coll., 
    53 F.3d 209
    , 211 (8th Cir. 1995). While this standard is more
    stringent than the standard for awarding court costs, in this case there were numerous
    reasons to find that Whitson litigated in bad faith. Therefore we find no abuse of
    1
    The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri. The parties consented to trial before a United States Magistrate
    Judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c), with direct review to this court.
    -2-
    discretion in the award of costs and fees to the prevailing defendants. The judgment
    of the magistrate judge is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-