Jarvis v. Cirrus Logic 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 03-50910
_______________________
KEVIN JARVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
CIRRUS LOGIC, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CA-652-SS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before DAVIS, PRADO, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevin Jarvis appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him and
in favor of his employer, Cirrus Logic, Inc., on his complaint of discrimination based on age and
national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. The district court entered a well-reasoned opinion carefully analyzing the
summary judgment evidence in conjunction with the operative law on the subject in finding that
there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial.
We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying
the same legal standard as the district court. Wyatt v. Hunt Plywood Co., 297 F.3d 405, 408 (5th

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Cir. 2002)
As the district court noted, we also note that Jarvis admitted that he was qualified the
same as or similar to the employees retained after the reduction in force (RIF). In order to
succeed on a discrimination claim in a RIF situation, it is incumbent upon the terminated employee
to prove that he was “clearly better qualified” than the retained employees. Manning v. Chevron
Chemical Co., LLC, 332 F.3d 874, 882, n.4 (5th Cir. 2003)(explaining that the “clearly better
qualified” standard still applies after the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)).
After a careful review of the record, this court concludes that there was no genuine issue
of material fact that would have entitled Jarvis to a trial on the merits. Therefore, for essentially
the reasons cited in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --