Edward COCKRHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH Cent. BELL Tel. Co., Defendant-Appellee, 695 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Edward COCKRHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH Cent. BELL Tel. Co., Defendant-Appellee, 695 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp. (cod, 2003-03-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp.
D. Colo. · 2003 · confidence medium
Black v. O’Haver, 567 F.2d 361 , 371 (10th Cir.1977); see United States v. La Spesa, 956 F.2d 1027, 1034-35 (11th Cir.1992); Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. State of Ala.
M.D. Ala. · 1997 · confidence medium
Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983)); Marshall v. Western Grain Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1165, 1167-68 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 852 , 109 S.Ct. 137 , 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988); Nix, 738 F.2d at 1185 ; Turner v. Texas Instruments.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ernest HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the CECO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca10 1988
10th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983); Peters v. Lieuallen, 693 F.2d 966, 970 (9th Cir.1982); DeLesstine v. Fort Wayne State Hosp., 682 F.2d 130, 132-33 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1017 , 103 S.Ct. 378 , 74 L.Ed.2d 511 (1982); Lee Way Motor Freight, 625 F.2d at 950 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pitre v. Western Electric Co.
10th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983); Peters v. Lieuallen, 693 F.2d 966, 970 (9th Cir.1982); DeLesstine v. Fort Wayne State Hosp., 682 F.2d 130, 132-33 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1017 , 103 S.Ct. 378 , 74 L.Ed.2d 511 (1982); Lee Way Motor Freight, 625 F.2d at 950 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Margaret Spaulding, and James Bush, Intervenors-Appellants v. University of Washington (2×)
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Hayes v. Foodmaker, Inc., 634 F.2d at 802-03 (reference under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(2)); Livas v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 607 F.2d 118, 119 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Harden v. Dayton Human Rehabilitation Center, 520 F.Supp. 769, 770-71 (S.D.Ohio 1981) (reference under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(2)); see also Oliver v. Allison, 488 F.Supp. 885, 888-89 (D.D.C.1980) (mem.) (consensual reference to magistrate).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liptak v. United States
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See Bynum v. Baggett Transportation Co., 228 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir.1956) (if testimony not included as part of record, no way exists to test findings under clearly erroneous standard); see also National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Koch Industries, 701 F.2d 108 , 111-12 (10th Cir.1983) (special master’s conclusion that jury had reached a compromise verdict was similar to a credibility finding, requiring review of transcript by district court); Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983) (where half of the transcript of the trial conducted before a magistrat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liptak v. United States
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
See Bynum v. Baggett Transportation Co., 228 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir.1956) (if testimony not included as part of record, no way exists to test findings under clearly erroneous standard); see also National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Koch Industries, 701 F.2d 108 , 111-12 (10th Cir.1983) (special master's conclusion that jury had reached a compromise verdict was similar to a credibility finding, requiring review of transcript by district court); Cockrham v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 695 F.2d 143, 145 (5th Cir.1983) (where half of the transcript of the trial conducted before a magistrate …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George W. NIX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WLCY RADIO/RAHALL COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant-Appellant
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Cockrham v. *1186 South Central Bell Telephone Co., 5 Cir. 1983, 695 F.2d 143, 145 (per curiam); EEOC v. Brown & Root, Inc., 5 Cir.1982, 688 F.2d 338, 340 ; Byrd v. Roadway Express, Inc., 5 Cir.1982, 687 F.2d 85, 86-87 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henry James HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
In reversing, the court held that a showing that the plaintiff was reprimanded, given unsatisfactory evaluations and eventually fired for reasons for which white employees were neither disciplined nor discharged “established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge due to unequal discipline ... notwithstanding the race of his replacement.” Id. at 145 (citations omitted).
30 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1788, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,276 Edward Cockrham
v.
South Central Bell Telephone Company
82-3394.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 10, 1983.
695 F.2d 143
J. Courtney Wilson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant., George W. Byrne, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Johnson, Per Curiam, Rubin, Williams.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Edward Cockrham charges that his former employer, South Central Bell Telephone Co., violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., by placing him under selective surveillance, harassing him, and eventually discharging him solely because he is black. The district court referred the case to a magistrate. The magistrate conducted a five-day trial, then deferred decision pending receipt of post-trial filings from the parties. Ten months after trial, the magistrate informed the parties that the court reporter had lost her transcript notes for the last half of the trial.

Counsel for the parties proved unable to reach agreement on a stipulation to the contents of the missing portion of the transcript. The magistrate then notified the district court of the state of the transcript and recommended that the action be retried. The district court denied the magistrate’s request and directed him to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for disposition on the merits of Cockrham’s case. The magistrate acceded. His report found the facts to be contrary to every allegation of racial discrimination made by the plaintiff; in addition, he concluded that Cockrham had failed to make out a prima facie case under Marks v. Prattco, 607 F.2d 1153, 1155 (5th Cir.1979), because he had failed to show that South Central Bell filled his position with a nonminority. The magistrate recommended dismissal of all charges.

The district court filed a minute entry stating that, although portions of the trial transcript were lost, the remainder provided sufficient basis to uphold the magistrate’s conclusion that Cockrham had failed to establish a prima facie case under Prattco. Shortly thereafter, the district court entered judgment in favor of South Central Bell. Cockrham appeals.

Prattco held that a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge can be established by proof that (1) the person was a member of a protected minority; (2) the person was qualified for the job from which discharged; (3) the person was discharged; and (4) after the discharge, his employer filled the position with a nonminority. Prattco at 1155. But as this Court re[*145] peatedly has stated, Prattco’s four-part test is not the exclusive route to prima facie proof of discriminatory discharge. EEOC v. Brown & Root, Inc., 688 F.2d 338, 340 (5th Cir.1982); Byrd v. Roadway Express, 687 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir.1982); Jones v. Western Geophysical Co., 669 F.2d 280, 284 (5th Cir.1982); Coleman v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 664 F.2d 1282, 1284-85 (5th Cir.1982); Hedrick v. Hercules, 658 F.2d 1088, 1093 n. 4 (5th Cir.1981); Ramirez v. Sloss, 615 F.2d 163, 168-69 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1980); Turner v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 555 F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir.1977). Cockrham claims that an examination of the lost evidence would have shown that, contrary to the magistrate’s findings, he was reprimanded, given unsatisfactory evaluations, and eventually fired for reasons for which white employees were neither disciplined nor discharged. If so, Cockrham established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge due to unequal discipline, Brown v. A.J. Gerrard Manufacturing Co., 643 F.2d 273, 276 (5th Cir.1981), notwithstanding the race of his replacement, EEOC v. Brown & Root at 340; Byrd at 87.

The loss of half of the trial transcript makes impossible the necessary, obligatory review of the magistrate’s findings by the district court for clear error. Fed.R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2); Livas v. Teledyne Movable Offshore, Inc., 607 F.2d 118, 119 (5th Cir. 1979); accord Spaulding v. University of Washington, 676 F.2d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir. 1982). The case must be retried.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RETRIAL.