Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 95-30294
Summary Calendar.
Delores SINGH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHONEY'S, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Sept. 18, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Delores Singh (Singh) filed a complaint against her
former employer Shoney's, Inc. (Shoney's), alleging that she was
fired because of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and
Louisiana's anti-discrimination statute, LA.R.S. 23:1006. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Shoney's. We
affirm.
FACTS
Singh, a white female, was hired by Shoney's in September
1981. At the time of her termination in January 1993, Singh held
the position of Dining Room Supervisor in a Shoney's restaurant in
New Orleans, Louisiana. Her duties included hiring, firing,
supervising, disciplining, and training the hostesses, waitresses
and salad bar attendants who worked in the restaurant.
In January 1993, Defendant's corporate office received a
"petition" signed by 36 workers employed at the same restaurant as
1

Singh. The petition alleged that Singh had been engaging in
offensive, racially-discriminatory conduct towards subordinate
employees. Shoney's responded to the petition by sending its Vice
President of Personnel, John Southerland, and its Equal Employment
Opportunity Manager, Juanita Presley (both of whom are black), to
New Orleans to investigate the allegations. Southerland and
Presley interviewed 44 employees at the restaurant, including
Singh. Based on these interviews, Shoney's concluded that Singh
had engaged in offensive, inappropriate conduct in the workplace,
and terminated her employment.
During the course of the investigation, it came to Shoney's
attention that the manager of the restaurant, Terry Dumars, a black
male, had also engaged in inappropriate conduct in the workplace,
and he was terminated. Dumars was replaced with a white male, and
Singh was replaced with another white female.
DISCUSSION
The district court shall, on a party's motion for summary
judgment, render forthwith the judgment sought if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c). We review
the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same standard as the court did below. Industrial Indemnity Co.
v. Chapman and Cutler, 22 F.3d 1346, 1349 n. 5 (5th Cir.1994).
In order to make out a prima facie case of discrimination a
2

plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge must show (1) that she
is a member of a protected group; (2) that she was qualified for
the job that she formerly held; (3) that she was discharged; and
(4) that after her discharge, the position she held was filled by
someone not within her protected class. Vaughn v. Edel, 918 F.2d
517, 521 (5th Cir.1990), citing Norris v. Hartmarx Specialty
Stores, 913 F.2d 253, 254 (5th Cir.1990). Once the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant
must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
discharge. If the defendant states a legitimate reason, the
plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
reason provided by the defendant was a pretext for discrimination.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct.
1817, 1824-25, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).
Singh failed to make out a prima facie case of racial
discrimination on this record, because she was replaced by a white
female. Moreover, Shoney's has stated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for discharging Singh. Singh attacks the
articulated reason on the ground that the petition sent to Shoney's
corporate office was false and was the product of a racially
motivated scheme by a black waitress to get her fired. She also
alleges that the word "nigger" which she was accused of using, was
used by black employees talking to each other. The focus of our
inquiry is not whether the initial petition contained falsehoods or
was racially motivated, but whether Shoney's reasonably believed
the allegation and acted on it in good faith. Waggoner v. Garland,
3

Texas, 987 F.2d 1160, 1165 (5th Cir.1993). Inappropriate behavior
by the black employees who signed the petition may have been
relevant to a disparate treatment case, but Singh's pleadings and
evidence did not develop this claim below.1
On appeal, Singh points to evidence in the record of
statements made by some employees during the investigation that
they did not witness her alleged behavior, and to her own
deposition testimony that the people who originally complained
about her were racially motivated. The enumerated evidence does
not call into question the motivation of Shoney's in making the
decision to terminate her. There is no genuine issue of material
fact in the record before this Court that could have precluded
summary judgment on Singh's claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.

1The district court granted summary judgment as to Singh's
disparate treatment claim relative to the kitchen manager, who
was transferred to another restaurant, finding that the
circumstances surrounding that decision were not "nearly
identical" to the circumstances of Singh's termination. She does
not challenge that ruling on appeal.
4