(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 94-10542
Summary Calendar
_______________
THOMAS D. SWITZER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
TEXAS COMMERCE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:93-CV 72-X)
_________________________
(December 8, 1994)
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Switzer sued for reverse race discrimination under
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer,
Texas Commerce Bank. The court explained its reasons in a
memorandum opinion and order entered on May 4, 1994. Finding no

-- 1 of 2 --

2
reversible error, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set
forth by the district court.
The bank asserts that it fired Switzer, who is white,
because of problems with his performance. He also made racially
insensitive remarks (including, as the district court put it, "a
presumably facetious comment to his supervisory staff that he
wanted them to participate in community activities, whether PTA,
hospitals, baseball, or the KKK").
The district court concluded that Switzer had not
established a prima facie case of reverse discrimination because,
under Flanagan v. Aaron E. Henry Community Health Serv. Ctr.,
876 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1989), he did not belong to a racial
minority within the company, as he was a supervisor and the
majority of the bank's supervisors were white. Moreover, the
court stated, in the alternative, that even if a prima facie case
was presented, the bank had articulated a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for Switzer's discharge.
As the district court carefully explained, Switzer made no
substantial showing of pretext and offered no direct evidence of
discrimination. His claim of reverse discrimination is wholly
without merit, and the judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --