Case Name: Carol Ann CUPPLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, and the Transport Management Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-08-21
Citations: 498 F.2d 1091
Docket Number: No. 74-1854
Parties: Carol Ann CUPPLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, and the Transport Management Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before COLEMAN, DYER and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 498
Pages: 1091–1092

Head Matter:
Carol Ann CUPPLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, and the Transport Management Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-1854.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 1974.
Edward B. Cloutman, III, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
George W. Bramblett, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Before COLEMAN, DYER and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM :
In an individual action, Mrs. Carol Ann Cupples sued her former employer, who had discharged her, charging that as a female she had been the victim of discrimination with respect to hiring, job classifications, and promotions, as well as terms and conditions of employment, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and (d); 42 U. S.C. § 2000e-3; 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).
The District Court found for the employer, Cupples v. Transport Insurance Company, 371 F.Supp. 146 (1974). We affirm.
In suits alleging discrimination in employment practices as to identified individuals, findings of fact by district courts may be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence, Bolton v. Murray Envelope Corporation, 5 Cir., 1974, 493 F.2d 191. In all aspects, this case was clearly of that type and the Bolton rule mandates an affirmance. In the evidentiary posture of the case, the same would have been true had the trial court held the other way. This leaves no room for appellate revision of the judgment below.
Affirmed.