Girard v. Brinker Intl Payroll

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 02-10255
_______________________
MELODY GIRARD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Civil Docket #5:00-CV-428-C
_________________________________________________________________
January 14, 2003
Before GARWOOD, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
The court has carefully considered this appeal of an
award of damages and attorneys fees for Title VII sexual harassment
perpetrated against Ms. Girard while she worked at a Chili’s
restaurant in Lubbock, Texas. We have carefully reviewed the
briefs, the jury verdict and pertinent portions of the record.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Having done so, we are constrained to reverse and render judgment
in favor of appellant Brinker International.
This case is largely resolved by the answers contained in
the jury verdict. We may assume without deciding that the verdict
is sustained by the evidence at least with respect to Girard’s
allegations that her co-workers at Chili’s sexually harassed her
and that Brinker did not make a good faith effort to prevent or
promptly correct the sexual harassment. Nevertheless, and
critically, the jury also found that Girard was not constructively
discharged from employment. Indeed, the record gives every
indication that she simply quit.
In light of this finding, there is no basis for the award
of lost wages and employment benefits to Girard. Because the award
of actual damages cannot be sustained, Girard also loses her
punitive damage award. This court has held in a related context,
involving the Fair Housing Act, that a punitive damages award
cannot stand in the absence of an actual damage award unless a
constitutional right has been violated. Louisiana ACORN Fair
Housing v. Leblanc, 211 F.3d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 2000). In so
deciding, we examined caselaw from this and other circuits
interpreting various federal rights statutes. The reasoning of
Louisiana ACORN applies here.
Finally, since Girard’s damage awards fail, there is no
predicate for the court’s award of attorneys fees, because “the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
plaintiff’s level of success can critically influence the proper
amount of fees.” Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 297
F.3d 361, 373 (5th Cir. 2002).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is REVERSED and
RENDERED in favor of Brinker.

-- 3 of 3 --