Singleton, et al v. RPM Pizza Inc

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 04-31217
AKESHA SINGLETON; KAWANTA SINGLETON
Plaintiffs - Appellants
VERSUS
RPM PIZZA, INC.
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
2:03-CV-2219
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants challenge the take nothing judgment rendered
against them based upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.
Appellants raise a number of issues in this appeal none of which
have merit:
1. The district court did not err in its jury instruction

-- 1 of 3 --

2
concerning adverse employment action. In any event, any
deficiency in this respect was clearly harmless under the
evidence.
2. The district court did not err in allowing the defendant
to present an affirmative defense based on Burlington
Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). In
any event, the presentation of this defense was
irrelevant to the judgment because the jury did not reach
this issue and the jury’s verdict was not predicated on
it.
3. The district court did not err in not requiring the jury
to make a separate determination on plaintiffs’ claim
predicated on constructive discharge independent of their
hostile work environment claim. The jury’s finding of no
hostile work environment necessarily precluded
plaintiffs’ claims of constructive discharge.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
accepting defendant’s race-neutral explanations for their
peremptory challenges of African-American jurors.
5. Plaintiffs’ argument on appeal that a juror was biased
before trial was not preserved by proper objection in the
trial court and is waived. In any event, no evidence of
juror bias was produced.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

-- 2 of 3 --

3
precluding plaintiffs from using a 20-year-old conviction
to impeach a witness.
7. Finally, the evidence was ample to support the jury
verdict.
The district court judgment is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --