Mark Muller v. Mississippi Power Company, et al, No. 19-60301 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-60301 Document: 00515260869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-60301 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARK MULLER, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY; JOHN/JANE DOES, 1−10, Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi No. 1:17-CV-339 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mark Muller sued his former employer, Mississippi Power Company, for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 19-60301 Document: 00515260869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 No. 19-60301 retaliatory discharge under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on both claims. Muller appeals, and we affirm. The district court issued an impressive eighteen-page Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining the reasons for the summary judgment. On the retaliation claim, the court concluded that Muller was not engaged in protected activity in making the particular statements for which he alleges he was retaliated against. The court concluded that “Muller has failed to show that a reasonable person could have believed that the incidents he opposed violated Title VII.” As for age discrimination, the district court opined that references to Muller’s age were not direct evidence of discrimination because, inter alia, the conversations “occurred after the decision had been made to terminate Muller.” The court concluded that “Mississippi Power has provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination.” For example, the court noted that “Muller breached confidentiality” and “was loud, angry, and disrespectful toward management when he was confronted about the breach.” We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and the applicable law. We have heard the oral arguments of counsel. There is no error, reversible or otherwise. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons carefully given by the district court. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
