Jorden v. Potter

*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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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
August 2, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50878
Summary Calendar
MELODY G. JORDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,
U.S. Postal Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. 03-CV-240)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reviewing the evidence de novo, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the defendant for the following reasons:

-- 1 of 3 --

2
1. Jorden has not established the fourth element of a prima facie case of
age discrimination. She has produced no evidence supporting her
assertions that defendant has targeted older workers for termination to
avoid paying retirement benefits or that the conduct for which she was
fired did not warrant termination under the Last Chance Agreement.
Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985)
(stating that unsupported allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion
for summary judgment). Defendant’s decision not to discipline the
younger employee involved in the incident does not lead to an
inference of discrimination because Jorden and the younger employee
were not in nearly identical circumstances. Bryant v. Compass Group
USA Inc., __ F.3d __, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 11419, *15 (5th Cir.
2005). The evidence before the employer suggested that Jorden
instigated the incident and the younger employee was not employed
subject to a Last Chance Agreement.
2. The district court’s award of costs to defendant was appropriate.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides for an award of costs to
the prevailing party. “[T]here is a strong presumption that the
prevailing party will be awarded costs.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767

-- 2 of 3 --

3
F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985). “[O]ur review of a district court
decision regarding costs is narrow, and we will reverse only if an abuse
of discretion is shown.” Id. Jorden has not established an abuse of
discretion by the district court.
Affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --