Culpepper v. Hollywood Park Inc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 99-30162 Summary Calendar _______________

MIYOKA S. CULPEPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS

LA-I GAMING, et al., Defendants, HOLLYWOOD PARK, INC., doing business as Boomtown Casino-Westbank, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (97-CV-184-K) _________________________

November 23, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and manager of the casino where she worked as a BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. waitress. PER CURIAM:* Following the presentation of Culpepper’s evidence in the bench trial, the defendants Miyoka Culpepper appeals the dismissal of moved for judgment on partial findings her sexual harassment claims. Finding no pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 52(c); the court error, we affirm. granted the motion and dismissed the claims. On appeal, Culpepper challenges only the I. finding of no hostile work environment. Culpepper sued LA-I Gaming and Hollywood Park, Inc., under title VII, alleging II. sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. We review findings in a dismissal pursuant Specifically, she pointed to the actions of one to rule 52(c) only for clear error. See of her supervisors, Eric Nash, who was a Southern Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125, 128-29 (5th Cir. 1993); 9 JAMES W. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has FEDERAL PRACTICE § 55.52[1] (Matthew determined that this opinion should not be published Bender 3d ed. 1999). “A factual finding is not and is not precedent except under the limited clearly erroneous as long as the finding is circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

plausible in the light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Haas, 171 F.3d 259, 268 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir. 1993).

When issuing a judgment on partial findings, a district court is not required to draw any special inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Emerson Elec. Co. v. Farmer, 427 F.2d 1082, 1086 (5th Cir. 1970) (holding that the court should resolve the case on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence). The court can enter a judgment on partial findings even if the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, makes a prima facie case. See Id. at 1086 n.9.

A claim of “hostile work environment” must clear a high hurdle: “Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment SSan environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusiveSSis beyond Title VII’s purview.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). The district court properly applied this standard, taking account of all the allegedly discriminatory conduct and of the fact that much of it was during a consensual relationship.

In light of the standard of review and of the evidence in the recordSSincluding Culpepper’s admissions that most of Nash’s actions were during a consensual relationship, and including the fact that she never told Nash that his advances were unwelcome nor sought a s s is t a n c e o r p r o t e c t i o n f r o m managementSSwe cannot say that the finding that defendants’ actions did not create a hostile working environment was clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.