Green v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 29 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1464,79-1464 |
| Citation | 612 F.2d 967 |
| Parties | 22 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 125, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,714 Richard GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James E. Winfield, Vicksburg, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
Watkins, Pyle, Ludlam, Winter & Stennis, Robert H. Weaver, Peyton S. Irby, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before RONEY, KRAVITCH and TATE, Circuit Judges.
In this race discrimination case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 2000e Et seq. the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the appellee holding that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. We affirm.
Appellant, a black man, bases his discrimination claim on his being discharged following a fight between him and another employee. On August 5, 1977 appellant and a fellow employee, a white man, became involved in an altercation that resulted in the appellant slashing the other employee with a knife-like work tool. Although the genesis of the fight was disputed, it was undisputed that only the appellant had used the dangerous work tool. The appellee suspended both of the employees pending an investigation.
On August 11 the appellant was discharged for violation of company Rule 26 which proscribes fighting. Later, the other employee was also found in violation of the rule but was suspended rather than discharged. Appellee's Industrial Relations Manager testified that this apparent disparity of treatment arose because of the disparity of conduct: although the other employee may have verbally participated in the fight, the appellee responded with physical violence. Moreover, the manager testified that the work tool involved is such a dangerous instrument that harsh sanctions must be imposed to deter such conduct.
The district court dismissed this action on the ground that appellant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination. In a Title VII action the plaintiff must first prove a prima facie case of racial discrimination. If a case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action. With respect to discharge for violation of work rules, the plaintiff must first demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence either that he did not violate the rule or that, if he did, white employees who engaged in similar acts were not punished similarly. Turner v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 555 F.2d 1251, 1254-55 (5th Cir. 1977). Here, appellant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. J.A.M. Distributing Co.
...acts were not punished similarly.'" Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Green v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 612 F.2d 967, 968 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 879, 101 S.Ct. 227, 66 L.Ed.2d 102 (1980)); see Greene v. Potter, 240 Fed. Appx. 657, 660 (5th ......
-
Dortch v. Memorial Herman Healthcare System-Sw
...protected class] who engaged in similar acts were not punished similarly.'" Mayberry, 55 F.3d at 1090 (quoting Green v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 612 F.2d 967, 968 (5th Cir.1980)). Dortch admits that he failed to abide by Memorial Hermann's "no-call/no-show" policy. See Dortch Depo., at 38. See......
-
Earnestine Hill v. Windows
...(holding that an employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated); Green v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 612 F.2d 967 968 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that where one employee involved in fight was more harshly disciplined than the other, plaintiff was not......
-
Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Group
...protected class] who engaged in similar acts were not punished similarly.'" Mayberry, 55 F.3d at 1090 (quoting Green v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 612 F.2d 967, 968 (5th Cir.1980)). If the plaintiff successfully establishes her prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant-employer to art......