Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Golie Leroy TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

468 F.2d 910

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-12-05
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • "statistical evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination is of probative value in an individual discrimination case for the purpose of showing motive, intent, or purpose"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Golie Leroy TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
37 opinions
TERRELL v. FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC.,468 F.2d 910(5th Cir. 1972)
GOLIE LEROY TERRELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE FELDSTEIN COMPANY, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 72-2494.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 3, 1972.
Rehearing Denied December 5, 1972.
Page 911
U.W. Clemon, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

A. Berkowitz, Jackson M. Payne, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Terrell appeals from an adverse judgment entered in a non-jury trial in which he asserted that, in violation of42 U.S.C.A. § 1981and42 U.S.C.A. § 2000eet seq., the Company maintained a racially discriminatory promotional policy, refused to promote him to salesman, and discharged him when he sought the promotion.

[2] Two questions are presented for review: (1) did the district judge consider the proffered statistical evidence of class discrimination on the part of Feldstein; and (2) are the district court's findings of fact "clearly erroneous"?

[3] Since the answers to the interrogatories propounded by Terrell to the Company, from which the statistical exhibits were abstracted, were admitted into evidence, Terrell's contention that the district court failed to consider this documentary evidence is without merit. Moreover, the district court's findings of fact more than pass muster under Rule52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Although statistical evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination is of probative value in an individual discrimination case for the purpose of showing motive, intent, or purpose,cf.Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, Ford Division of Ford Motor Co., 8 Cir. 1971,440 F.2d 1157, it is not determinative of an employer's reason for the action taken against the individual grievant. The record contains ample evidence to support the conclusion that Terrell's non-promotion and subsequent discharge were for no other reason than just cause. In short, Terrell fails to carry his burden of showing, as the attacking party must, that the district court's fact findings were "clearly erroneous." United States of America v. Reddoch and Taylor et al., etc., 5 Cir. 1972,467 F.2d 897;seeMartin v. Mercantile Financial Corp., 5 Cir. 1968,404 F.2d 886; Seaton v. Sills, 5 Cir. 1968,403 F.2d 710.

[4] Affirmed.Page 912
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩