Filed: Mar. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 96-30598 Summary Calendar _ GLENN J. LEJEUNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERRY KAYWOOD, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (95-CV-2600-R) _ November 19, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 We affirm the judgment of the district court based on that part of the court’s order and reasons of May 2, 1996
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 96-30598 Summary Calendar _ GLENN J. LEJEUNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERRY KAYWOOD, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (95-CV-2600-R) _ November 19, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 We affirm the judgment of the district court based on that part of the court’s order and reasons of May 2, 1996,..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _____________________________________ No. 96-30598 Summary Calendar _____________________________________ GLENN J. LEJEUNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERRY KAYWOOD, Defendants-Appellees. ______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (95-CV-2600-R) _____________________________________________________ November 19, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 We affirm the judgment of the district court based on that part of the court’s order and reasons of May 2, 1996, concluding that: 1) Avondale Industries, Inc., gave a racially neutral reason for LeJeune's discharge; 2) Avondale’s neutral reason for LeJeune’s discharge was not shown by LeJeune’s summary judgment evidence to be pretextual. AFFIRMED. 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
