IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20402
Conference Calendar
JACQUELINE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BRYAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-1233
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacqueline Johnson appeals the summary judgment in favor of
the Housing Authority of the City of Bryan, Texas, in her action
alleging discriminatory employment practices in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et
seq. The district court entered summary judgment because the
Bryan Housing Authority was not an employer as defined by Title
VII. Title VII defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an
industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees
each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-20402
-2-
current or preceding calendar year . . . .” 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e(b); Greenlees v. Eidenmuller Enterprises, Inc., 32 F.3d
197, 198 (5th Cir. 1994). The Bryan Housing Authority submitted
the affidavit of its Executive Director which stated that the
Bryan Housing Authority had no more than seven employees at any
time. Johnson submitted no evidence to the district court to
rebut this affidavit.
Johnson has filed a motion to supplement the record with
several documents including the Bryan Housing Authority quarterly
report to the Texas Workforce Commission. This court does not
generally consider new evidence presented for the first time on
appeal. See United States v. Flores, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir.
1989). This case does not present any circumstances which would
require a variance from the general policy. Johnson’s motion to
supplement the record is DENIED.
There is no genuine issue for trial that the Bryan Housing
Authority was not an employer as defined under Title VII, and the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor
of the defendant. See Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp.,
936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.