Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06303/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06303-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debbie Kearns
Appellee
Leona T. Langs
Appellant
The Oklahoma Tax Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

FI ~D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Co 1rt of A.r,!)8£.la 'T' ........ ~. , .. .. : , .. ,...-: .. :+ 

FEB 2 0 1991 

ROBER1' L. HOECKER 

Clerk LEONA T. LANGS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION; 

DEBBIE KEARNS, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-6303 

(D.C. No. 89-856-R) 

( W. D . Okla . ) 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

Plaintiff Leona Langs brought this action under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 u.s.c. §§ 2000e et~ (1988). 

She alleged that she was fired from her job at the Oklahoma Tax 

Commission in retaliation for bringing a racial discrimination 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6303 Document: 010110103802 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 1 
complaint to a supervisor and a grievance worker. She also 

alleged that the defendant discriminated against her in work 

assignments and reprimands. 

The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary 

judgment on the work assignments and reprimands issue. The court, 

however, concluded that the plaintiff had established a prima 

facie case with respect to her retaliatory discharge claim and 

overruled the defendant's motion for summary judgment on that 

issue. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that the 

plaintiff was terminated because she was a poor employee and that 

the reasons for her discharge were not pretextual. 

The plaintiff appeals the district court's grant of summary 

judgment and the court's ruling that the reasons for her termination were legitimate and not pretextual. 

We review the grant of summary judgment by examining the 

record to determine if any genuine issue of material fact was in 

dispute. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 

143 (10th Cir. 1988). If there is no such dispute, the court must 

determine if the substantive law was correctly applied. Id. We 

review the record in the light most favorable to the opposing 

party. Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 

1987). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6303 Document: 010110103802 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 2 
In a Title VII suit, the plaintiff must first establish a 

prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1972). The plaintiff must present evidence which raises an inference that the defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff. See Texas Dep't of Community 

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). "The burden of 

establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not 

onerous." Id. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district 

court did not err in finding that the plaintiff submitted 

insufficient evidence of discrimination by the defendant in work 

assignments and reprimands to establish a prima facie case for 

trial. The plaintiff attempted to support her claim by comparing 

the treatment she received through written absenteeism reprimands 

with those the defendant gave to two non-black employees. Medical 

excuses were noted in their reprimands. The plaintiff's contention that the defendant discriminated against her by refusing to 

acknowledge the medical reasons for her absences is refuted by the 

fact that the plaintiff did not make known these reasons for more 

than a year after some of the absences for which she was reprimanded. Even when we review the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, she did not present evidence which raises 

an inference that the defendant discriminated against her in issuing reprimands. See id. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6303 Document: 010110103802 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 3 
Similarly, the record does not disclose any evidence of discriminatory treatment in work assignments other than the conclusory statements contained in Ms. Langs' affidavit. This evidence 

is insufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment. See 

Citizens Envtl. Council v. Volpe, 484 F.2d 870, 873 (10th Cir. 

1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936 (1974). We therefore affirm the 

district court's grant of summary judgment on the issue of discriminatory treatment in work assignments and reprimands. 

Ms. Langs also appeals the district court's finding that the 

reasons for her firing were legitimate. We must uphold findings 

of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Everaard v. Hartford 

Accident and Indem. Co., 842 F.2d 1186, 1191 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Trial court findings are not clearly erroneous unless we are definitely and firmly convinced, after reviewing the record as a 

whole, that a mistake has been made. LeMaire v. United States, 

826 F.2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The record supports the finding that the defendant did not 

discharge Ms. Langs for complaining to a grievance worker and her 

supervisor about racial discrimination. Without discussing all 

the evidence before the district court, we note the evidence 

detailing Ms. Langs' insubordination, poor performance, and frequent absenteeism. The court's ruling that the Oklahoma Tax 

Commission did not unlawfully retaliate against Ms. Langs was not 

clearly erroneous. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6303 Document: 010110103802 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 4 
The district court's order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6303 Document: 010110103802 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 5