Farmer v. Halliburton Company

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20492
Summary Calendar
GARY FARMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HALLIBURTON COMPANY, doing business as
Halliburton Energy Services
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H:98-CV-3285)
_________________________________________________________________
November 26, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Gary Farmer appeals from the final judgment, following two
summary judgments, on his claims for age discrimination under §
5.01 of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Tex. Labor Code
Ann. § 21.051, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (AEDA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and § 510 of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1140. We affirm the judgment of
the district court for essentially the reasons stated in the
district court’s detailed 27 September 2000 and 12 April 2001
opinions.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
For Farmer’s ERISA claim, and assuming Farmer established a
prima facie case, Halliburton provided a legitimate non-
discriminatory reason for its selection of Jamail over Farmer to
hold the new Travel Manager position created by Halliburton’s 1996
Shared Services Initiative (SSI), and the three year age difference
between Farmer (51) and Jamail (48) was insignificant under
O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996).
Consequently, the inference of pretext was insufficient to
withstand summary judgment. Also, Halliburton provided a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for including Farmer in the
reduction-in-force (RIF) that resulted from the SSI, and Farmer’s
evidence of pretext was insufficient.
Claims of age discrimination under the ADEA and the Texas
Commission on Human Rights Act are analyzed under the same
analytical framework — the one announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Evans v. City of Houston, Tex.,
246 F.3d 344, 348 (2001). The district court correctly concluded:
Halliburton’s justification for its decision to hire Jamail
(because he was more qualified) was a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason; Farmer’s evidence was insufficient to
establish pretext; and Farmer failed to establish a prima facie
case with respect to the RIF, because he did not raise a factual
issue as to whether Farmer was included in the RIF based on
impermissible age discrimination. Rather, as the district court
noted, Farmer raised claims more properly raised for his ERISA
claim. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 612 (1993).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --