Wilson v. City of Plano, Texas , 164 F.3d 900 ( 1998 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-40947
Summary Calendar
_____________________
SUSAN WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
versus
CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
March 6, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Susan Wilson appeals from the summary judgment dismissing her
Title VII sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim
against her former employer, the City of Plano, Texas. Wilson
contends that there is a material fact issue as to whether the City
had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged harassment and
failed to take prompt remedial action; and, alternatively, that
there is a material fact issue as to whether the harassing
supervisor was an agent of the City and whether his knowledge of
the harassment can be imputed to the City. Pursuant to our
requisite de novo review of the summary judgment record, we AFFIRM
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilson
v. City of Plano, TX, No. 4:96-CV-190 (E.D. Tex. 7 July 1997)
(unpublished).
The City cross-appeals the district court’s order requiring
it, the prevailing party, to bear its own costs. Pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 54(d), except when provided otherwise by statute or rule,
“costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to
the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs”. Although
the district court has broad discretion in determining whether to
award costs to a prevailing party, Rule 54(d) creates “a strong
presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs”.
Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985). Our court
has held that, when a district court declines to award costs to a
prevailing party, it should state its reasons for doing so. Id. at
131-32. See also Hall v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 937 F.2d 210,
216-17 (5th Cir. 1991); Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557 F.2d
521, 526-27 (5th Cir. 1977). Because the district court did not
state reasons for requiring the City to bear its own costs, we
REMAND the question of costs to the district court for
reconsideration of its decision. If the district court determines
that the City is not entitled to costs, it should state its reasons
for that decision.
- 2 -
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED;
REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION AS TO COSTS AWARD
- 3 -