*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40944

ERNESTINE MANUEL

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TEXAS STATE TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(2:04-CV-239)

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant, Texas State Technical College (TSTC), appeals the district

court’s judgment, following a bench trial, awarding plaintiff-appellee Manuel

(Manuel) back and front pay, costs and attorney’s fees, and finding that the

negative performance evaluation and subsequent termination of Manuel were

acts of retaliation in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a). Following a bench trial, we review findings of fact for clear error and legal

conclusions de novo. Lehmann v. GE Global Ins. Holding Corp., 524 F.3d 621,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

624 (5th Cir. 2008).

Manuel is an African American woman who, until her termination, worked

as an accountantin the Business Office at TSTC in Marshall, TX. When she was

passed over for a promotion, she filed an internal racial discrimination complaint

on May 20, 2002. On June 4, 2002, Manuel’s supervisor gave her a poor

performance evaluation, which prompted Manuelto file a second discrimination

complaint. On August 8, 2003, Manuel was fired. After a bench trial, the

district court found that Manuel’s evaluation and eventual termination were

adverse employment actions taken in response to her discrimination complaints,

and accordingly concluded that TSTC had committed retaliatory acts in violation

of Title VII.

We determine that the district court’s findings of fact regarding Manuel’s

termination were not clearly erroneous. The evidence also adequately supports

the district court’s finding that the June 2002 poor performance evaluation was

at least in part motivated by Manuel’s initial discrimination complaint.

However, because the relief granted by the district court depends solely on

Manuel’s termination, we need not determine whether the performance

evaluation was itself an adverse employment action. The evidence sustains the

district court’s conclusion that Manuel was fired in retaliation for filing goodfaith discrimination complaints and the reasons offered by TSTC for her

termination were pretextual.

TSTC challenges the portion of the damages award granting Manuel lost

back pay and front pay. Back pay is an equitable remedy that is within the

sound discretion of the district court in Title VII cases, but the employee has a

duty to avoid or minimize damages by finding substantially equivalent

employment. Sellers v. Delgado College, 902 F.2d 1189, 1193 (5th Cir. 1990).

We review the district court’s determination of whether or not the employee has
3

fulfilled her duty to mitigate damages for clear error. Id. We review the district

court’s award of front pay for abuse of discretion. Giles v. Gen. Elec. Co., 245

F.3d 474, 489 (5th Cir. 2001). We find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in choosing to award back pay, nor did it commit clear error in finding

that Manuel properly mitigated her damages. Furthermore, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in its front pay award. 

The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.