### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60004
AL I CE F AYE COX P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. D E S O T O C O U N T Y , M IS S IS S IP P I D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo r th e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i
B ef ore S M ITH , O W E N , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg e: A l i ce C ox ap pea l s t h e deci si on of t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en t against her cl ai m s based u p on t h e defen se of col l ater al est opp el
em an ati n g f

rom a rul i n g i n an adm i n i st rat i ve proceedi n g. F or the reasons set f o r t h be l o w , w e R EV ER SE t he j udg m e nt as t o herAD EA r e t al i at i o n c l ai m s a nd R E M A N D th o se cla im s; w e A F F IR M th e re m a in d e r o f th e d istr ict co u rt’s j u d gm en t.

I. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60004

2 Fac t ual Bac kgr ound C ox w as a secr et ary i n t h e sheri f f ’ s of f i ce of D eS ot o C ou n t y. Sh e al l eges t h a t , a s a r e s u lt o f h e r a g e a n d h e r r e fu s a l t o c a m p a ig n a c t iv e ly fo r th e s h e r if f’s
r e - e l e c t i o n, s he w as t r ans fe r r e d f r o m herse c r e t ar i alpos i t i o n t o a po s i t i o n i n t he j ai lf or w h i ch she w a s n ot t rai n ed or qu al i f i ed. I n N ovem ber of 200 3, she f

i l ed sui t on these cl ai m s; she conti n u e d to b e em pl oyed at t h e j ai l
. I n O ct ober of 200 4, w h i l e her f

i rstsui t w as pen di n g, she m ad e a reportt o her j ai lsup ervi sor t o t h e ef

fectt h at s h e ha d w i t n essed abu se of a j ai l ed i n m ate by severalof f i cers . F ol l ow i n g an i n vest i gati o n b y t he D e So t o Count y D i st ri ctA t t orney’ s of f i ce, i t w as f

o und t h at n o m i s c o nduc t o c c ur r e d a nd t hatCox g av e i nc o ns i s t e nt st atem en t s abou t t h e even t s s h e a l l eged l y w i t n essed. C ox w as t erm i n ated f or gi vi n g a fal se r eport. Sh e am en ded her com pl ai n t in t h e w rongful t ran sfer l awsui t , c o nt e ndi ng t hatD e So t o C o unt y t e r m i nat e d heri n r e t al i at i o n f o r f i l i ng t he w r ongf

ul t r ansf

erl aw sui t and t hat t he r eas on gi ven f orherf

i ri n g w as pr e t e xt ual
. She l at e r s ue d s e ve r ali ndi vi dua lde fe nda nt s , s uc h a s t he s he r i f f a nd th e d i stri ct a ttorn ey ; th a t su i t w a s con soli d a ted w i th the origi n a lD eS oto C ou n ty su i t. Cox f

i l ed f o r une m pl o ym e nt b e ne f i t s . The M i s s i s s i ppiEm pl o ym e nt Sec uri t y Co m m i ssion (M E S C ) con d u cted a h ea ri n g a n d de term i n ed tha t C ox w as n ot eli gible f

or b en efi ts be ca u se sh e w a s d i sch a rg ed f or w ork- r el at ed m i scon d u ct. She uns uc c e s s f

ul l y appea l ed t o a n Appe al s Ref e r e e a nd Bo ar d o f

Rev i e w . She t he n f i l e d a n a ppe ali n t he l o c alc i r c ui t c o ur t , w hi c h s he ul t i m at e l y di s m i s s e d. Af t e r t he di s m i s s al o f he r ad m i ni s t r at i ve c as e , t he de fe nda nt s i n t he
w r o ngf ult r ans fe r /t e r m i nat i o n c as e f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r s um m ar y j udg m e nt contend i n g t h at the col l ater al estoppel ef fectof t h e M E S C rul i n g barred h er c ase i n f e deraldi s t r i c t c o ur t . The c o ur t g r ant e d t he s um m ar y j udg m e nt a s t o t he t erm i n ati on cl ai m s, bu t i t condu ct ed a j u ry t ri al on t h e ori gi n al t ran sfer c l ai m s. T h e j u ry f

ou n d f or C o x on t h e age cl ai m an d f or t h e C ou n t y on t h e F i rstN o. 08- 60004

Althou ghcouched as viol atio ns o f con stitution al rights and inte rference with 1 employment, her clai ms again st th e individualdef e n d ant s areba sed upon the same c onte ntio n – thatth eycaused her to lose h er j ob because of th e wron gful tr an s f ersuit and that th eir han dlin g of th e investigatio n was bi ased and imprope r.

Defendants cont end that Cox fail ed to appeal properly this case as again s tth e 2 indivi dualdefe ndants. Whil e it i s no t amodeln oticeo f a p p ea l, we concludeth at Cox a de qu ate lyf

il edh erapp eal a g ain stalld ef en dants . 3 Am e ndm e nt c l ai m ( r e l at i ng t o t he sheri f f’ s r e - e l e c t i o n c am pa i gn i s s ue )
. The di st ri ctcourtentered j u dg m en t on the j u ry verdi ctan d the previ ou sl y- gran t ed
s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. O n a ppe al , no o ne c hal l e nge s t he j udg m e nt o n t he j ur y ve r di ct , so w e do
n ot consi der t h e ori gi n al w rongful transfer cl ai m s. T h e other cl ai m s are ba sed
u pon t h e contenti on t h at C ox w as f i red f or f i l i n g t h e ori gi n al w rongful t ran sfer l aw sui t , a sui t predi cat ed p art i al l y on age dis cri m i n ati on , an d the co n ten t i on t hatt he c o unt y’ s pr of fe r e d r e as o ns f

o r Cox ’ s di s c har ge w e r e fal s e a nd p r e te x tu a l. 1 II. St andard of

R evi ew B ec ause t he appea lc onc er ns o nl y t he por t i on o f t he j udgm ent t hat w as ba s e d up o n t he c o ur t ’ s o r i gi nals um m ar y j udg m e nt , o ur r e vi e w i s de no vo. 2 A d am s v. Travel ers I n d em . C o. , 4 6 5 F .3d 1 5 6 , 1 6 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ).

III . D i s cus s i on A
. Sh ou l dt h i s Cou rtG i ve Col l ate ralE st opp elEf f ectt o t h e M

E S C ’ s Find i ngs? Th e l aw i s c l eart hat “ w hen a s t at e a genc y ac t i ng i n a j udi c i alc apac i t y .

. . r es ol ves di sput ed i ss ues of fac t pr ope r l y be f

or e i t w hi c h t he par t i es have had
a n ad eq u a te op p ortu n i ty to l i ti ga te, fed era lcou rts m u st give th e a ge n cy ’ s fa ctfi n d in gth e s a m e p r e c lu s iv e e ffe c t to w h ic h it w o u ld b e e n t it le d i n th e S t a t e ’s
cou rts. ” Un iv. of T

en n . v . E lli o tt , 478 U
. S
. 7 8 8 , 7 99 (1986) (i n t erna lqu ot ati onN o. 08- 60004

4 m ar ks, al t er at i on, and c i t at i on o m i t t ed)
. I n M i ss i ss i ppi , adm i ni st r at i ve d e c is io n s a r e g iv e n p r e c lu s iv e e ffe c t. Sm i t h v. Uni v e r s i ty of Mi s s i s s i

ppi , 797 So. 2d 956 , 963 (M i ss. 200 1)
. Sp eci f i cal l y, th e d e cision s of t h e M E S C are gi ven pr e c l us i ve w e i ghti n M i s s i s s i ppic o ur t s , i f s upp o r t e d b y t he e vi de nc e a nd i n t he
a b s e n c e o f fr a u d
. M IS S . C ODE A NN . § 71 -5-53 1 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ); R aiola v. C h evron U
. S
. A
. , I

n c. , 8 7 2 S o . 2 d 7 9 , 8 4 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). Al t ho ugh Cox v o l unt ar i l y di s m i s s e d he r j udi c i alappea lo f t he M ESC
r ul i ng, s he no w s e e ks t o a t t ac k t hat r ul i ng c o l l at e r al l y byc o nt e ndi ng t hata no nj u d i ci a l l y rev i ew ed d ecisi on o f th e M E S C s h ou l d n ot be gra n ted pr eclu sive effect. She a l s o co nt e nds t hatt he rul i ng w as notbas e d upo n sub s t ant i alev i de nc e a nd
w as t ai nt ed w i t h f

r aud. C ox’ s fai l ure t o f ul l y purs ue an appealunder § 7 1- 5- 531 d o e s n o t u n d e r m in e th e p r e c lu s iv e e ffe c t of th e M E S C ’ s d e c is io n . S ee R a iola , 872 So
. 2 d a t 8 4 ( f

o r bi ddi ng c o l l at e r ala t t ac k o f M ESC de c i s i o n wher e c l ai m ant soug h t an d recei ved vol u n ta ry d ism i ssalof app eal un der § 71- 5- 531 )
. I f t h ere w e r e no o ppo r t uni t y f o r j udi c i alr e vi e w , w e w o ul d ha ve a po t e nt i al l y di f fe r e nt si t u ati on . H ere, how ever, i t i s C ox w h o fai l ed to pu rsue her ap propri ate avenu es t o c hal l en ge t he j udg m e nt . H ad s he do ne s o , s he w o ul d ha ve ha d t he oppor t uni t y t o pr es entev i denc e, i f any, t hat t he M E SC ’ s dec i si on w as t ai nt ed by fr a u d o r b a s e d o n a la c k o f s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See N CI B l dg. C ompone nt s v. B err y , 8 11 So
. 2 d 3 21 , 3 29 (M i s s . C t . A pp . 2 00 1) ( no t i ng t hata c o ur t l ac ks t he pow ert o o ver t urn t he f i ndi ngs of

t he M E SC unl es s evi denc e i s pre se nt ed t hat th e fi n d in g s a re “rid d led w ith fra u d ” o r b a se d on a lac k of su b sta n tia l ev id e n ce ). B ecau se C ox fai l ed to f u l l y ava i lhersel f

of t h is a v e n u e, she can n ot now c o l l at e r al l y at t ac k t he M ESC ’ s de c i s i o n. B
. D oes C ol l ate ralE st opp elB ar C ox’ s C l aim s? Th e par t i es c onc ede , under Su pre m e Courtaut hor i t y, t hat c ol l at er al
es t oppeldoe s not appl y t o s t at e a dm i ni st r at i ve dec i si ons w h ere C ongr es s has pro vi ded f

ora de t ai l ed adm i ni st r at i ve r em edy suc h as t hat f ound i n t he A geN o. 08- 60004

I n the district co urt, Coxstated: “Also to the extentPlaintiff’ s claims are b ased on the 3 a nti -r et ali ationp rovis io n s of th e ADEA , co ll ate ral es to pp eldoe s no t b ar th es e cl aim s, b ec au se state administrative provision s which are not ju diciallyreviewed do not h avep r e clusive e ffects on clai ms made pursuant to adetaile d ad mini strativesch eme t o re gulateempl oy ment di sc ri mi n ation .” I n a post-argument letter, Co x’s cou nselconten ds that this courtshould con sider the 4 mixe d-motive i ssue d espite the abse nce of anyraisin g of this i s s ue b efore thedistrict court, citin gt o ce rt ainSeventhC ircuitc a se s. See Flyn n v. Sandahl , 5 8F .3 d 2 8 3( 7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 5 ); Joh nsonv. Gu dmun dsso n , 3 5F .3 d 1 1 0 4( 7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4); Glass v. Dach el , 2 F.3 d 73 3 (7 th Cir. 199 3). However , heconcedes t ha tF ifth Circuit pre cedent, b y whichwe are b oun d, is to the co ntr ary . Keelanv. MajescoSoft ware, I nc. , 407 F.3 d 332 , 339 (5th Cir. 2 005) (“I t i s wellsettl ed in this Circuit that the scope of appell ate review o n a su mmary ju dgment or der is limitedto matters presented t o th e di strict court.”). Our ca ses ar e cl ear thatm ix ed-m otive mu st be rais edi nth e trial co u rtb yth e partyse eking t o r elyu po nit onapp eal. See Nasti v. CIBA S pe ci al t y Ch em . , 49 2 F .3d 5 89, 595(5th Cir. 2 007) (fin ding waiver of mixed-moti ve claim because no conc es sionof legitimate, non-di scrimin atory reaso n for di schar gemadebefore 5 D is c r im in a tio n in E m p lo y m e n t A c t (A D E A ). A s t or i a Fed. Sa v. & Loan A s s ’ n v. S o l i m i no , 501 U
. S
. 104 , 110

- 14 (1991). Th e A D E A ha s an an t i

- ret al i ati on sec t i on w h ic h w a s a r g u a b ly im p lic a te d b y C o x ’ s co m p la in t t h a t s h e w a s d is c h a r g e d in
r e ta lia tio n fo rfilin gh e r o r ig in a l co m p l a i n t u n d e r th e A D E A
. S ee 2 9 U .S .C . § 623 ( d). D efen da n t s c on t en d that C ox fai l ed to raise th i s i ssue i n t h e di st ri ct c o u r t , b u t we n o t e t h a t s h e d i d r a i s e i t , a l b e i t n o t i n g r e a t de t a i l
. T h u s , we 3 concl u de t h at C ox’ s cl ai m s based u pon t h e A D E A an t i

- ret al i ati on provi si on s are n o t b a r r e d b y co lla te r a l e s to p p e l. C ox’ s r em ai n i n g cl ai m s t h at w ere n ot a dd ress ed by t h e j u ry verdi ctcenter on t h e al l eged w rongful n ess of her di scharge. O t h er than the A D E A ret al i ati on c l ai m , t he y ar e ba r r e d by t he pr e c l us i ve e f fe c t o f t he M ESC f

i ndi ng r e ga r di ng t he
r eas on f or her di sc harge
. I n her r epl y br i ef, C ox c l ai m s t hatt he M E SC f i ndi ng, even i f t rue, w ou l d n ot preven t her cl ai m s because h er di scharge could h ave been
c ause d b y a m i x e d m o t i v e –h e r m i s c o nd uc t a nd a p r o t e c t e d r e a s o n. Ato r al
ar gum e nt a nd b y s ubs e que nt l e t t e r t o t he c o ur t , he r a t t o r ne y c o nc e de d t hathe
c o ul d no t po i nt t o a ny pl ac e w he r e a m i xe d- m o t i ve c l ai m w as r ai s e d i n t he d i stri ct cou rt. S ee Tu rner v. B aylorR i cha rdson Med. C t r. , 4 7 6 F .3 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 4 n .3 4N o. 08- 60004

dis t r ic tc ou rt). Coxdid not raisethis i ssue anywhere befo re the district co urt – in her plea ding s or in the summaryj udgment papers. Thus, we decline to a ddress this i ssue fo r th e first time at this latedat e. 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ I t i s we l ls e t t l e d t h a t we d o n o t c o n s i d e r i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t he f i r stt i m e o n appeal
. ” )
. A ddi t i onal l y, w e c ust om ar i l y do notc ons i deran appeal p o in t r a is e d fo r th e fi r s t t i m e in a re p ly b r ie f. C arm on a v. S ou t h w estA i rl i n es C o ., 536 F
. 3d 344 , 347 n . 5 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. Th u s, w e do n ot reach t h e qu est i on of w h et h er a m i xed

- m ot i ve cl ai m w ou l d su rvi ve t h e M E S C fi n di n g i n this case. I V. C oncl usi on F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, sum m ary j u dg m en t on C ox’ s c l ai m s based u pon r e t a l i a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e ADEA a n t i

- r e t a l i a t i o n pr o v i s i o n s i s REV ERS ED and t ho s e c l a i m s a r e REM ANDED t o t he di s t r i c t c o ur t f o r pr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e nt w ith th is o p in io n . In a l l o t h e r r e s p e c ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is AF F I RMED.