UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-31232
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH DENNIS SINGLETON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRANK’S CASING CREW & RENTAL TOOLS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(97-CV-1455)
May 14, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court dismissed Joseph Dennis Singleton’s
Title VII claim against Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.
(“Frank’s”), on motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
The facts underlying this dispute are relatively settled.
Singleton was formerly employed by Frank’s as an Offshore Welder.
He resigned in late 1990 while Frank’s was experiencing a slow down
in work. For six years, Singleton periodically served as an
offshore contract hand for Frank’s. Then, in 1996, Singleton
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
applied for a Shop Welder position with Frank’s. Frank’s rejected
his application for employment based on a company policy regarding
the rehiring of past employees. During the same period that
Singleton, a black male, had applied for the Shop Welder’s
position, two white male applicants, also former Frank’s employees,
were rehired as Offshore Welders. Based on this proof, Singleton
filed his claim for discriminatory failure to hire.
The district court granted summary judgment on
Singleton’s claim. The district court noted that Singleton had
failed to present evidence that Frank’s had filled the Shop Welder
position with a white employee. Citing a plaintiff’s minimal prima
facie burden, the district court assumed arguendo, however, that
Singleton could support his prima facie claim. The district court
then found that Frank’s had presented a legitimate, non-
discriminatory basis for not rehiring Singleton. This court
reviews the determination de novo.
First, the record is devoid of facts tending to support
Singleton’s prima facie claim. To support a Title VII claim, a
plaintiff must present proof that the position he sought was
offered to or filled by another applicant. See Grimes v. Texas
Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140
(5th Cir. 1996). Although the district court purported to shift
the burden to Frank’s, the court correctly noted that Singleton had
failed to present sufficient evidence to establish this fact.
Singleton did not show that anyone was rehired for the shop welder
position, a different job than that of offshore welder. Summary
2
judgment was proper for this reason alone.
Second, the district court properly held that Singleton
could not meet his ultimate Title VII burden. When an employer
presents a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its challenged
decision, an employee must prove both that the reason for the
decision was pretextual and that the real reason was intentional
discrimination. See Walton v. Bisco Indus., Inc., 119 F.3d 368,
370 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 515, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2751 (1993)). Singleton can prove
neither. Frank’s offered an affidavit from its personnel manager
that former employees were not rehired for Shop Welder positions
due to the high costs of training. Aside from his ambiguous
allegations regarding the actual terms of Frank’s policy,1
Singleton produced no evidence tending to establish that the policy
was anything other than that expounded in Frank’s supporting
affidavits. Far from bolstering his pretext argument, the fact
that two former employees were rehired as Offshore Welders while
Frank’s rejected Singleton’s application for a Shop Welder position
lends credence to the submitted justification. Regardless, even if
Singleton had proven that the asserted basis was pretextual, he
still failed to present any evidence to support a finding that the
decision was based on a discriminatory motive. Absent such
1
See Elliott v. Group Med. & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556,
567 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Houser v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 627
F.2d 756, 759 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980)). Singleton asserts that the
shop foreman told him Frank’s does not rehire welders, but in
context, this statement could have applied to the shop of which he
was foreman, rather than to the whole company.
3
evidence, the district court properly dismissed the case.
AFFIRMED.
4