Full text
Norris v. McElveen
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 *3 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.