Court Opinion

ID: 11862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:08:21+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:51.284901
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                     _______________________________

                               No. 96-50878
                     _______________________________

                            POINETTE GODFREY,

                                                    Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                   versus

                         SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,

                                                       Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                          (SA-95-CA-0456)
_________________________________________________________________

                          April 16, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

     Poinette Godfrey challenges an adverse summary judgment in her

Title VII action, which arises out of discharge from her employment

as a probationary flight attendant after Southwest had received

negative   reports    concerning    her   “attitude,    friendliness,   and

passenger contact”.

     Godfrey   contends    that    Southwest’s   system   of   confidential

evaluation of probationary flight attendants constitutes disparate

     *
          Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
impact discrimination based on race.            Godfrey did not raise this

issue in her complaint, however.          The first appearance of this

theory was not until after Southwest’s summary judgment motion.

Furthermore, in her “letter brief” in response to Southwest’s reply

brief   for   summary   judgment,     Godfrey    expressly    abandoned   her

disparate impact claim. Needless to say, this court may decline to

exercise our discretion to consider issues that were not raised in

the district court.       See, e.g., Highlands Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union

Fire Ins. Co., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994) cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 903 (1995) (applying, in civil case, plain error

analysis of United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)).

     In any event, concerning this claim, as well as those for

discriminatory treatment and retaliatory discharge claims, and

pursuant to our de novo review, we affirm for essentially the

reasons stated    by    the   district   court.     Godfrey    v.   Southwest

Airlines   Co.,   Order    Granting   Defendant’s     Motion    for   Summary

Judgment (SA-95-CA-0456) (18 October, 1996).

                                                               AFFIRMED