Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50820/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50820-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 29, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50820

 

LARRY D. SKINNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SAN FELIPE DEL RIO CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT

SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL.,

Defendants,

SAN FELIPE DEL RIO CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT

SCHOOL DISTRICT; EDDIE BACA, in his individual

capacity; JOANNE RUARK-ACKERMANN, DR., in her

individual capacity; ANN DIXON, DR., in her individual

capacity; KAY HERNANDEZ; FRED HERNANDEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. DR-01-CV-7)

_______________________________________________________

Before KING, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

 Case: 03-50820 Document: 0051149166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2004
*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.

2

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals both the award of attorney’s fees and the amount awarded to appellee.

We affirm for the following reasons.

In assessing whether fees are appropriate under Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC,

434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978), for frivolous or meritless litigation, this Court has been guided by the

Mississippi factors: (1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the

defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether there was a full-blown trial on the merits. United

States v. Mississippi, 921 F.2d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 1991). It is important to note that “[t]hese

factors are, however, guideposts, not hard and fast rules. Determinations regarding frivolity are to

be made on a case-by-case basis.” See EEOC v. L. B. Foster Co., 123 F.3d 746, 751 (3d Cir.

1997) (internal citations and quotations omitted). While satisfying a prima facie case usually

precludes the award of attorney’s fees, there are instances in which the prima facie case may be

shown but the case is still ultimately frivolous. See EEOC v. Union Camp. Corp., 536 F. Supp.

64, 66 (W.D. Mich. 1982). Whether or not the district court correctly determined that the

appellant did not establish the elements of his prima facie case of discrimination, this litigation was

ultimately groundless and frivolous. The court did not abuse its discretion.

In his reply brief, appellant also challenges the amount of the attorney’s fees. He contests

whether the hours were reasonable as the Defendants did not provide a breakdown of the

reasonable hours expended, argues the Johnson factors did not support the lodestar amount, and

contends that specific deposition and copy costs should not have been deemed recoverable. As

 Case: 03-50820 Document: 0051149166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2004
3

these specific issues were not clearly raised before the trial court, they are deemed waived. See

United States ex rel. Wallace v. Flintco Inc., 143 F.3d 955, 971 (5th Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-50820 Document: 0051149166 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2004