UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-20214
Summary Calendar
MARY DAVIDSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs
SHERRY THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant
VERSUS
GUARDIAN PLANS, INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
(H-95-CV-1353)
November 19, 1997
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant, Sherry Thompson, filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC on June 21, 1990 against Defendant-
appellee Service Corporation International (SCI). On September 11,
1992, the EEOC issued a determination and right to sue notice.
Thompson did not request review of this dismissal nor did the EEOC
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
issue a notice of intent to reconsider Thompson’s charge. Although
the earlier right to sue notice had not been revoked, a second
right to sue notice was issued by the EEOC on February 1, 1995.
This second notice was subsequently revoked. On May 2, 1995,
Thompson filed suit against Guardian Plans, Inc., SCI, Kenneth
Griffin, David Willis, and Garrison Wynn pursuant to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Thompson
alleged disparate treatment and retaliation.
On October 22, 1996, the district court granted summary
judgment on Thompson’s claims in favor of all the defendants. With
regard to the the individual defendants, the district court
reasoned a Title VII suit cannot be maintained against employees in
their individual capacities and no evidence existed indicating that
Griffin, Willis, or Wynn were “employers” as defined by Title VII.
Summary judgment was granted in favor of the remaining defendants
as Thompson’s suit was not filed within the 90-day filing period
provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and no grounds under the
doctrine of equitable tolling existed for extending the filing
period. On appeal, Thompson argues that the district court erred
in finding her suit was not timely filed.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,
and the relevant portions of the record itself. We affirm for
substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.
AFFFIRMED.
2