Baylor v. Kansas City So Rwy S, 01-30897 (2002)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 01-30897
Visitors: 56
Filed: Jan. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30897 Summary Calendar RONNIE C. BAYLOR Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (No. 99-CV-2335) January 4, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30897 Summary Calendar RONNIE C. BAYLOR Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (No. 99-CV-2335) January 4, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title V..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30897 Summary Calendar RONNIE C. BAYLOR Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (No. 99-CV-2335) January 4, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII, there being no evidence that Appellant suffered disparate treatment compared to similarly situated coworkers. And even if he had made out a prima facie * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. case, Appellant has failed to offer any evidence that the stated justification for the adverse employment action was pretextual, as the district court’s memorandum ruling rightly concluded. AFFIRMED. -2-
Source: CourtListener
