Wallace v. Louisiana Board of Supervisors for the Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College ( 2010 )

Case: 09-30374 Document: 00511021298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 5, 2010
No. 09-30374 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
HENRY WALLACE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
LOUISIANA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE LOUISIANA STATE
UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:01-CV-579
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Wallace appeals from the district court’s judgment after a bench
trial finding in favor of the defendant on Wallace’s Title VII racial discrimination
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and his Equal Pay Act claim, 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(d)(1). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM:
1. Because this case was tried on the merits, we are not concerned with
the adequacy of the parties’ showing under McDonnell Douglas and
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-30374 Document: 00511021298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2010
No. 09-30374
instead review the district court’s finding on the ultimate factual issue of
discrimination vel non for clear error. See Merwine v. Bd. of Trustees for
State Institutions of Higher Learning, 754 F.2d 631, 636 (5th Cir. 1985).
We agree with the district court that Wallace’s salary was based on the
workings of the classified and unclassified civil service system, as well as
the operation of the LSU employee system, which the district court
accurately described at trial as “Byzantine.” Wallace fails to show that
any disparity in pay was based on his race, and his claim is supported by
only his own subjective belief. See Byers v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 209
F.3d 419, 427 (5th Cir. 2000) (rejecting plaintiff’s reliance on subjective
belief regarding discriminatory intent); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason
Co., 26 F.3d 1277, 1297–98 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that plaintiffs’ mere
collective belief was insufficient to prove that race was the true reason for
disparate treatment). We conclude there is no clear error in the district
court’s judgment.
2. Wallace’s Equal Pay Act claim also fails. Although Wallace and Helen
Bates both performed CFO duties, Bates was never placed in the official
classified position of CFO. She performed additional duties as Director of
Patient Financial Services, and the trial testimony was that her salary
was set under the LSU employee system. Furthermore, Bates’s salary was
also initially determined so as to compensate her for having to relocate
from Baton Rouge. Bates therefore did not perform substantially equal
work, and her salary was based on factors other than sex. See Siler-Khodr
v. Univ. of Tex. Health Science Ctr. San Antonio, 261 F.3d 542, 546 (5th
Cir. 2001); 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.
2