Case ID: f-appx_82/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ivory DAIGRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-30332.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 8, 2003.
    Richard Paul Bullock, Bullock & Johnson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Janis E. Van Meerveld, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Ivory Daigre appeals the summary judgment awarded Velocity Express against her claims of wage discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. These two statutes are generally parallel in this context. See Siler-Khodr v. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 261 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087, 123 S.Ct. 694, 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002).

The district court found that Daigre, a black female, made a prima facie case of discrimination by showing there was a similarly situated white male employee who was more highly compensated. Velocity Express then offered evidence that the white male was employed in a more highly compensated job, but was performing the same tasks as Daigre as a favor to the company. This nondiscriminatory explanation was sufficient to shift the burden back to Daigre.

Daigre could overcome the explanation by showing that it was a pretext for discrimination by presenting evidence “that permits the jury to believe that the reason was false and that illegal discrimination was the actual reason”. Nichols v. Lewis Grocer, 138 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir.1998). Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, Daigre’s flat denial of the explanation offered by Velocity Express is insufficient, as a matter of law, to carry her burden.

AFFIRMED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.