Baung v. Entergy Corporation, et al

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30706
Summary Calendar
JU H. BAUNG,,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ENTERGY CORPORATION; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-1786-N
March 6, 2000
Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Ju H. Baung (Baung) appeals the district court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of defendants, Entergy Corporation
(Entergy) and its subsidiary, Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI), in
his suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.
§ 26102, et seq. Baung contends the district court erred because
he allegedly established a prima facie case under FMLA and
because EOI’s “good faith” reasons for terminating him are not a

-- 1 of 2 --

2
defense to liability under FMLA.
We assume arguendo that Baung made a prima facie case under
FMLA. In addition, having reviewed the district court’s opinion,
the briefs, and the record, we find that EOI offered a legitimate
non-discriminatory reason for Baung’s discharge and that Baung
failed to produce any summary judgment evidence which would
sustain a finding that EOI’s articulated reason for his discharge
was not its real and sole reason, much less that the real reason
for his termination was discrimination or his exercise of rights
under the FMLA. Chaffin v. Carter Co., Inc., 179 F.3d 316, 319-
20 (5th Cir. 1999). We also reject Baung’s argument that whether
or not EOI in fact terminated him only because it concluded that
he had failed to timely end his outside employment as directed by
EOI is relevant only with respect to the amount of damages he
should be awarded under FMLA. Id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --