Alexander v. Crenshaw ( 1998 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 97-30785
Summary Calendar
___________________________
TONY B. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CHARLES CRENSHAW, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF
THE LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(95-CV-1735)
___________________________________________________
April 1, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees
in this case, concluding that the summary judgment evidence
established that Appellant failed to file a timely charge of
discrimination with the EEOC.
The appellees submitted evidence that the EEOC had no record
that Alexander had filed a claim. This was sufficient to raise an
inference that the Appellant had not filed a timely charge of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
discrimination with the EEOC. The only evidence the Appellant
submitted in response was a letter from the EEOC which stated that
the information Appellant had provided in a letter to the EEOC was
insufficient for purposes of filing a charge of discrimination.
The Appellant asserted that this EEOC letter established that he
had in fact filed a charge.
Even if the EEOC response letter supported an inference that
the Appellant had filed a charge of discrimination, there is no
basis for a reasonable inference that such a charge was timely.
Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir.
1997) (holding that in review of a grant of summary judgment, all
reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmovant).
Appellant’s deadline for filing a discrimination charge with
the EEOC was in August of 1995. The EEOC’s letter to Alexander was
dated Oct. 31, 1995.2 We agree with the district court that it is
unreasonable to assume that the EEOC waited three months to notify
the Appellant that his letter was insufficient. Moreover, the
inference that Appellant timely filed his charge of discrimination
is particularly unreasonable because it was within the Appellant’s
exclusive ability to establish the date of his alleged filing, and
he offered no affidavit or other proper summary judgment evidence
to establish this date.
We conclude that the district court correctly concluded that
2
The EEOC’s letter stated, “[t]he information you provided
is not sufficient for filing a charge of discrimination.
Additional information is needed before we can pursue this matter.”
2
the summary judgment evidence established that Appellant failed to
file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. We therefore
affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3