Barlow v. Caddo Commty Actn, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-30609
Summary Calendar
_______________
RALPH BARLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CADDO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
CADDO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC.,
AND
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
Dist. Ct. No. 96-CV-2593
_________________________
May 4, 2001

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES,
and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ralph Barlow, a white male, appeals a
judgment in favor of Caddo Community Ac-
tion Agency, Inc. after a bench trial in his dis-
crimination suit under title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq. Barlow argues that the district
court erred in refusing to apply the mixed-
motive analysis of Price Waterhouse v. Hop-
kins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
That argument has no merit. “Before the
Price Waterhouse methodology can be em-
ployed, plaintiff bears the ‘burden of
persuasion on the issue of whether [improper
factors] played a part in the employment
discrimination.” Mooney v. Aramco Servs
Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1217 (5th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 246).
In two excellent, well-reasoned opinions, the
district court made several findings of fact and
credibility determinations supporting its
decision that no improper motive existed for
the termination, precluding any mixed-motive
analysis. We cannot say that those findings
and determinations are clearly erroneous.1
AFFIRMED.
* 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determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the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.
1 As we have explained,
I]n a Title VII action that has been fully
tried on the merits, such that the district
court has before it all the necessary evidence
to make the ultimate finding of dis-
crimination, the factual inquiry is whether
(continued...)
1(...continued)
the defendant intentionally discriminated
against the plaintiff. On review, this court
must therefore decide whether the ultimate
finding of discrimination by the district
court was clearly erroneous. A finding is
clearly erroneous when although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.
Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d 438 (5th
Cir. 2000) (quoting Davis v. Yazoo Co. Welfare
Dep’t, 942 F.2d 884, 886 (5th Cir. 1991)). We
have no such conviction in this case.

-- 2 of 2 --