Williams v. Rubin
Williams v. Rubin
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ No. 95-60267 Summary Calendar _______________
BARBARA L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury, and FRANK GILBERT, Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (1:93-CV-458) _________________________ December 1, 1995 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barbara Williams, who is black, worked for the Internal Rev- enue Service and sued for race and sex discrimination, later dropping her sex-based claim. She contends a white woman was
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well- settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. given a promotion over her because of race.
The district court conducted a full bench trial and found no discrimination. We find no error in this decision. At trial, Williams was the only witness for the plaintiff. She admitted she knew of no reason she had not received the promotion except that she had received a lower evaluation than did the woman who was promoted. There was absolutely no evidence of racial animus or motive.
Williams claims the district judge should have recused because of a statement he made to the effect that he is audited annually by the Internal Revenue Service and is friends with it.
Williams raised this for the first time on appeal, so she has waived the issue. Moreover, the transcript does not contain the statement that Williams claims was made, and the court reporter has confirmed that the record is accurate in this regard.
Williams claims the district court improperly excluded a statement by Williams’s manager. There is no showing that the statement even referred to Williams, directly or indirectly.
Moreover, the statement does not refer in any way to race. The district court was within its discretion in excluding the statement.
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.