Norris v. McElveen ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 00-30597
Summary Calendar
____________________
DAVID NORRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE F. McELVEEN, ET AL.,
Defendants,
WAYNE F. McELVEEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(97-CV-505)
____________________________________________________________
March 13, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Norris appeals the dismissal, following a bench trial,
of his claims against the Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana,
arising out of the termination of his employment. Findings of fact
are reviewed for clear error; conclusions of law, de novo. E.g.,
FED. R. CIV. P. 52; Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
205 F.3d 222, 229 (5th Cir. 2000) (bench trial); Downey v. Denton
County, Tex., 119 F.3d 381, 385 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1997) (FED. R. CIV.
P. 52(c) judgment on partial findings).
For the judgment on partial findings, pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
P. 52(c), concerning Norris’ Title VII racial discrimination claim,
Norris contends the district court erred by holding he was
required, but failed, to prove he was replaced by a person of
another race. Instead, the court held: even assuming Norris
established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to
prove his termination was motivated by race. The record amply
supports that ruling.
Norris maintains the district court found the Sheriff’s
reasons for termination were pretextual, when the court supposedly
stated it did not agree Norris’ termination was justified.
Instead, the court stated: even if it did not agree the
circumstances justified the termination, it could not substitute
its judgment for that of the Sheriff. This is merely an
acknowledgment that federal courts are not personnel managers; that
Title VII relief is available only for unlawfully-motivated
employment decisions, not arbitrary or erroneous ones. Cf.
E.E.O.C. v. Louisiana Office of Community Servs., 47 F.3d 1438,
1448 (5th Cir. 1995) (ADEA). The district court did not find the
reason asserted by the Sheriff for Norris’ termination was not the
2
true reason, much less that the true reason was motivated by
Norris’ race.
Norris asserts the district court erred by finding
insufficient evidence of publication to sustain his due process
claim for deprivation of a liberty interest. But, in addition to
finding insufficient evidence that the Sheriff publicized the basis
for Norris’ termination, the court also found Norris failed to
prove the reason given by the Sheriff for the termination was
false. The evidence, including Norris’ admission that he engaged
in the conduct which was the basis for his termination (touching a
female co-worker), overwhelmingly supports that finding.
Finally, Norris contends the district court erred by
dismissing his state law claim for wrongful termination. Because
Norris was an at-will employee and failed to prove his termination
was motivated by race, the district court did not err by dismissing
that claim.
AFFIRMED
3