Michael B. Roberts, Houston, Tx., for plaintiff-appellant.

Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp, Houston, Tex., M. O. Granath, D. A. Grabham, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, CHARLES CLARK and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Ralph Simon ("Simon"), a black male, was employed by appellee Honeywell, Inc. ("Honeywell") from July 1973 until June 1977 when he voluntarily terminated his employment. On three separate occasions during his tenure with Honeywell, Simon was considered for a promotion but was not selected. In each case, a white male was chosen to fill the position. Simon brought suit in district court alleging racial discrimination,1 and asking for both declaratory relief and damages.2 After a non-jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Honeywell, and Simon brought this appeal.

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). This burden is met if plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he sought an available position for which he was qualified,3 "but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination."4 Burdine, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 1094. Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the defendant must articulate "some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." Burdine, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 1092; McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 93 S.Ct. at 1824. The defendant satisfies this burden by "explaining clearly the nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions."5 Burdine, supra, --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 1096. If this is accomplished, the plaintiff must then be given an opportunity to prove that the legitimate reasons offered by the employer were merely a pretext for discrimination. Burdine, supra, --- U.S. at ---- - -----, 101 S. Ct. at 1092-94; McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 93 S.Ct. at 1824-25.

In the case at bar, the district court neither expressly applied the above legal standards, nor made findings of fact which would enable us to review the judgment below in light of these standards. The conclusory statement that "there is no evidence of racially-premised disparate treatment," Record at 51, is insufficient in that it gives no clue as to the bases of the trial judge's decision and fails to indicate whether the proper legal standards were, in fact, applied. Moreover, a careful reading of the record in the case at bar reveals that the evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and such interpretation is solely within the province of the trial court. For example, the record is inconclusive as to whether plaintiff was qualified for the three positions in question, or whether the defendant clearly explained legitimate reasons for its actions. Without further findings of fact we are thus unable to review the trial court's decision in light of the applicable legal standards. In addition, after the district court rendered its decision in the case at bar, the United States Supreme Court delineated the ebbs and flows of the burdens of production and persuasion in discrimination cases. See Burdine, supra. Because of inadequate findings of fact in the case at bar, and in light of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Burdine, supra, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.