Epperson v. City of Shreveport

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 23, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 03-30708
Summary Calendar
_______________
KENNETH EPPERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CITY OF SHREVEPORT,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
m 02-CV-544
_________________________
Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Epperson appeals a summary judg-
ment on his claim that he was wrongfully
discharged. He also challenges an order al-
lowing defendant City of Shreveport to amend
its answer. Because we find no error in either
ruling, we AFFIRM.
Epperson sued the city for wrongful dis-
charge in violation of his First Amendment
rights and state law. Epperson, an elected par-
ish commissioner, resigned his position with
the city shortly after being informed of an or-
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published and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 of 2 --

2
dinance forbidding elected officials from hold-
ing certain positions with the city. Epperson
claims his resignation was forced and therefore
amounted to a constructive discharge. The
district court granted the city’s motion for
summary judgment on that issue.
We review a summary judgment de novo,
using the same standards as did the district
court. BP Oil Int’l, Ltd. v. Empresa Estatal
Petroleos de Ecuador, 332 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.
2003). Summary judgment is appropriate
where “there is no genuine issue as to any ma-
terial fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)).
To prove constructive discharge, a plaintiff
“must establish that working conditions were
so intolerable that a reasonable employee
would feel compelled to resign.” Brown v.
Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556,566 (5th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Faruki v. Parsons, 123
F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1997)). The district
court correctly held that there was no evidence
to support a finding that a reasonable person in
Epperson’s position would have felt compelled
to resign.
Epperson appeals the grant of the city’s
motion to amend its answer. The decision to
grant or deny a motion to amend pleadings is
within the sound discretion of the district
court. Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. 1991). In
addition to this particularly deferential stan-
dard of review, we note that FED. R. CIV. P.
15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be
freely given when justice so requires.” The
district court did not abuse its discretion in
granting leave to amend.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --