Sharon Bolton v. City of Hattiesburg, No. 17-60474 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60474 Document: 00514233096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60474 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 10, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SHARON BOLTON, Plaintiff−Appellant, versus CITY OF HATTIESBURG, Defendant−Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi No. 2:17-CV-41 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sharon Bolton sued her employer, the City of Hattiesburg, for sex, race, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 17-60474 Document: 00514233096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2017 No. 17-60474 and age discrimination because of a promotion that was not offered to her. As explained in a succinct but comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court granted summary judgment for the city and dismissed. We agree with the district court’s analysis. It recognized that although a plaintiff may be relieved of the requirement that she formally applied for a position, she still must show that she expressed interest in it. As the district court explained, “Because Plaintiff never applied to nor communicated any interest in the Crew Supervisor position to any of her superiors, she cannot show that she was qualified for the position she sought because she never sought the position” (citing cases). The court further reasoned that even if, arguendo, Bolton had established a prima facie case, the city offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to promote Bolton: the disciplinary actions that had been taken against her. And finally, as the court observed, any claim of race discrimination fails because the person who was promoted was of her race. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
