Brooks v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. , 111 F. App'x 722 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit September 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30329
Summary Calendar
KERMIT BROOKS, ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
MARVIN WEATHERSBY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC., ETC; ET AL,
Defendants,
THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC.
D/B/A SAV-A-CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(02-CV-2002-S)
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Marvin Weathersby (“Weathersby”) challenges the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
district court’s summary judgment dismissing his employment
discrimination suit against The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, Inc. (“A&P”). We affirm the district court’s judgment
because Weathersby failed to rebut A&P’s non-discriminatory reasons
for both Weathersby’s difference in salary and his demotion.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo applying the
same legal standards as the district court in determining whether
summary judgment was appropriate. Hudson v. Forest Oil Corp., 372
F.3d 742, 744 (5th Cir. 2004). “Summary judgment is proper if . .
. there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Young v.
Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 294 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir.
2002).
Weathersby worked for A&P in various locations with varied
titles and salaries. He complained of employment discrimination in
that he was paid less than Caucasian store managers and he was
demoted based upon his race, African-American. Moving for summary
judgment, A&P presented evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons supporting both Weathersby’s salary changes and his
demotion, including his limited managerial experience and a
documented failure to adequately maintain the store he managed.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record of this case and
have fully considered the parties’ respective arguments. We AFFIRM
the district court’s granting of summary judgment for the reasons
2
articulated in its order and reasons filed March 10, 2004.
AFFIRMED.
3