Case Name: Charles COOL, as Executor of the Estate of Cathy Cool, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHIC WIGS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-26
Citations: 93 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 02-61064, 03-60103
Parties: Charles COOL, as Executor of the Estate of Cathy Cool, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHIC WIGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 93
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Charles COOL, as Executor of the Estate of Cathy Cool, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHIC WIGS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-61064, 03-60103.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 26, 2004.
Kathryn Neal Nester, Christopher & Nester, Ridgeland, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wayne Dowdy, Magnolia, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
For these consolidated appeals from the post-jury-trial judgment and attorney's fees awarded against it in this sexual harassment action, Chic Wigs presents three issues. This action was filed after the death of the Chic Wigs' employee who claimed such harassment.
First, Chic Wigs contests the admission of three items of evidence — EEOC documents. The Chic Wigs employee had filed charges with the EEOC; the documents concern those charges. Based upon the unusual procedural posture of this action, our review of the record, and application of the proper standard of review, the district court did not commit reversible error.
Second, Chic Wigs challenges the denial of its motion for a mistrial based on statements in Cool's closing argument about a witness not being called by Chic Wigs. The district court found there was no prejudice. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion.
Third, Chic Wigs has appealed the award of attorney's fees to Cool. At oral argument for this appeal, however, Chic Wigs conceded that, if the judgment were upheld, so too should the fees order. Accordingly, because of our disposition of the other issues, we need not address this issue.
AFFIRMED
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.