D'Annunzio v. Baylor University ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________________________
No. 98-50824
____________________________________
DEBORAH D'ANNUNZIO & STEPHEN DENUNZIO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants.
versus
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 97-CV-278
_________________________________________________________________
August 23, 1999
Before JONES and WIENER, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE*, District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
After full record review, we find that the challenges to the
jury instructions given in the matter involving Deborah D'Annunzio
do not create a substantial and ineradicable doubt that the jury
was properly guided in its deliberations. See Mooney v. Aramco
Services, Inc., 54 F.3d 1207, 1216 (5th Cir. 1995).
*District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
The trial court dismissed the claim of Stephen DeNunzio under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50(a). We review a Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law de novo. We have, as is required,
reviewed the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-
movant and have drawn all inferences in his favor. Nero v.
Industrial Molding Corp., 167 F.3d 921, 925 (5th Cir. 1999;
Omnitech International, Inc. v. The Clorox Corp., 11 F.3d 1316,
1322 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court's resolution is correct.
Mr. DeNunzio offered no evidence that he had filed any proceedings
with the Department of Labor prior to his discharge. Moreover,
Mr. DeNunzio did not present evidence that any of his supervisors
knew of the dissatisfaction with employment conditions that was
harbored by his wife. Evidence of retaliatory discharge is absent.
The finding by the trial court that Baylor was in good faith
and had reasonable grounds to classify Deborah D'Annunzio as an
employee exempt from FLSA coverage was not clearly erroneous. See
Lee v. Coahoma County, Mississippi, 937 F.2d 220, 226-27 (5th Cir.
1991); see also Heidtman v. County of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1038
(5th Cir. 1999). Baylor submitted more than adequate evidence in
support of its good faith defense. In particular, the testimony of
Bill Dube and Claude Ervin when coupled with the audit by the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which found no
fault with the Baylor administration, are indeed supportive of the
district judge's decision. The judge did not abuse his discretion
2
in refusing to award liquidated damages. Id. Therefore, we affirm
the denial of D'Annunzio's claim for liquidated damages.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
evidentiary ruling that excluded the in globo Department of Labor
files. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 988 F.2d 573, 578 (5th Cir.
1993). The files, which were never proffered when the admission
was denied, were voluminous and may have contained inadmissible
components. The trial judge invited the attorney to harvest the
admissible and relevant documents from the file and offer the
product of that exercise. The attorney for the plaintiff did not
accept the invitation. In light of the foregoing, the judge's
exclusion of the entire file was not erroneous. McClure v. Mexia
Independent School District, 750 F.2d 396, 401-02 (5th Cir. 1985);
Shumate & Co. v. National Association of Securities Dealers Inc.,
509 F.2d 147, 155 (5th Cir. 1975). Likewise, the district judge
did not abuse his discretion in excluding D'Annunzio's testimony
concerning the amount of her overtime damages. See Allread v. City
of Grenada, 988 F.2d 1425, 1435-36 (5th Cir. 1993).
Analysis by the district court of the facts considered when
making an attorney’s fees award facilitate review on appeal. When,
as here, the record sufficiently reflects the data submitted and
considered by the court prior to its ruling, we find no error. The
plaintiff's motion for fees was not supported by a detailed brief
but was bottomed on an affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney and a
log of legal services performed. The brief in response from the
3
defendant's counsel was replete with citations, including the
factors to be considered when awarding reasonable attorney fees in
a FLSA matter. The decision of the trial judge followed the
filings from the lawyers. There is no evidence that the trial
judge did not consider the cogent filings that preceded his
decision. In this case, it is unnecessary to remand the attorney’s
fees issue for specific findings by the district court. See Riley
v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 99 F.3d 757, 760 (5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
4