Varnado v. City of Picayune MS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________________
No. 01-60179
Summary Calendar
________________________________
BRENDA VARNADO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PICAYUNE, MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(99-CV-273)
_____________________________________________
October 8, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brenda Varnado, a 49 year old female, was a patrol commander
with the police force of the City of Picayune, Mississippi. She
was fired in November of 1998 and replaced in her former position
by a 34 year old male. She then sued the City, asserting theories
of age and sex discrimination, violation of her right to due
process, and various state tort and contract claims. The district
court granted summary judgment to the City on all of Varnado’s
claims in February of 2001.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Concerning her age and sex discrimination claims, Varnado
argues that the district court erred in holding that she did not
make out a prima facie case of discrimination. Assuming without
deciding that Varnado made out a prima facie case, the City
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Varnado’s
firing. In particular, the City produced summary judgment evidence
that Varnado was a poor patrol commander and that her conduct
created low morale in the police force. Having made that showing,
the burden shifted back to Varnado to show that the reason
proffered by the City was pretextual. Evans v. City of Houston,
246 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir. 2001). Our review of the briefs and
the record convinces us that Varnado made no such showing.
Therefore, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
Varnado’s discrimination claims was proper.
Concerning Varnado’s other claims, we affirm the judgment of
the district court for the reasons given in its well-reasoned
opinion of February 1, 2001. The judgment of the district court is
therefore AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
-2-