IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20628
Summary Calendar
TYRONE HAMILTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-99-CV-1907)
March 19, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Tyrone Hamilton brought this action against Appellee
Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT), alleging racial
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The district court granted summary judgment on both of
Hamilton’s claims, and he appeals.
In a case alleging intentional discrimination, the plaintiff
has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
prima facie case of discrimination.1 A prima facie case is
established by a showing that the plaintiff is a member of a
protected group, that he was qualified for this position, that he
was subjected to an adverse employment action, and that he was
replaced by someone outside the protected class.2
Hamilton alleges that TDOT discriminated against him on the
basis of his race by failing to promote him to the position of
District Traffic Section Manager in 1997 and instead promoting Carl
T. Reilly, a white male. It is undisputed that the qualifications
for that position included a minimum of nine years of experience in
traffic studies and analysis or a related area, which could include
years of college or graduate-level work in a related field. In
order to have the requisite nine years of experience in traffic
studies and analysis, Hamilton must count his college years
studying engineering and a year of work experience that he does not
specify or corroborate in his affidavit. The district court
correctly held that Hamilton has failed to produce summary judgment
evidence creating a genuine issue of disputed fact as to whether he
had the minimum qualifications for the position he sought.
Even if Hamilton could make a prima facie showing of
discrimination based on the 1997 failure to promote, TDOT had
nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting Reilly in 1997. As evidence
1
Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
252-53 (1981).
2
See Ward v. Bechtel Corp., 102 F.3d 199, 202 (5th Cir.
1997).
of pretext, Hamilton claims that TDOT failed to follow its own
regulations by promoting Reilly without posting the position for
competitive applications. TDOT does not dispute this claim, however
it provides undisputed evidence that once it was aware of the
error, TDOT stripped Reilly of his promotion and posted the job
opening competitively, filling the position in 1999 with a Latino
male, a decision that Hamilton does not challenge.
Hamilton has not provided evidence by which a rational jury
could infer that TDOT discriminated against him by promoting
Reilly. Hamilton received yearly recommendations of promotions and
pay raises from the same individual who allegedly discriminated
against him on the basis of race. He also does not dispute that
Reilly was qualified, and has not provided sufficient evidence that
he was qualified for the promotion. The district court properly
granted TDOT’s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED.