Daigre v. Velocity Express Inc

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 8, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30332
Summary Calendar
IVORY DAIGRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VELOCITY EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(01-CV-961)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ivory Daigre appeals the summary judgment awarded Velocity
Express against her claims of wage discrimination under Title VII
and the Equal Pay Act. These two statutes are generally parallel
in this context. See Siler-Khodr v. University of Texas Health
Science Center San Antonio, 261 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2001),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 (2002).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court found that Daigre, a black female, made a
prima facie case of discrimination by showing there was a similarly
situated white male employee who was more highly compensated.
Velocity Express then offered evidence that the white male was
employed in a more highly compensated job, but was performing the
same tasks as Daigre as a favor to the company. This
nondiscriminatory explanation was sufficient to shift the burden
back to Daigre.
Daigre could overcome the explanation by showing that it was
a pretext for discrimination by presenting evidence “that permits
the jury to believe that the reason was false and that illegal
discrimination was the actual reason”. Nichols v. Lewis Grocer,
138 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 1998). Essentially for the reasons
stated by the district court, Daigre’s flat denial of the
explanation offered by Velocity Express is insufficient, as a
matter of law, to carry her burden.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --