Task: songer_jurisdiction

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that it had jurisdiction to hear this case?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".If the opinion discusses challenges to the jurisdiction of the court to hear several different issues and the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear some of the issues but did not have jurisdiction to hear other issues, answer "Mixed answer". 

PER CURIAM.
Appellant Donald Barfield brought suit against his former employer, Anheuser Busch, Inc., and against his former supervisor, Mike Parsons, claiming that they had discriminated against him by reason of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1982). The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that the actions against them were barred by the statute of limitations. 617 F.Supp. 32 (1985). Barfield appeals this judgment. We affirm the district court’s decision.
Barfield, a black employee of Anheuser Busch, was suspended from work on March 30, 1979 when he became involved in a fist fight with his supervisor. Anheuser Busch allegedly notified Barfield in April, 1979 that his employment had been terminated, although Barfield denies having received this notification. Barfield twice met with company officials in an attempt to gain reinstatement. When the company refused to reinstate him, Barfield’s ease was submitted to arbitration. On December 10, 1979, the arbitrator issued an opinion in favor of the company. Barfield brought this action in August, 1984.
The district court held that Barfield’s claim was barred by the applicable five year statute of limitations. The court found that Barfield was fired in April, 1979 thus causing his claim to accrue. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 504, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980). (Limitations period commences when the employment decision is made and communicated to the plaintiff.) The court also determined that arbitration of Bar-field’s dispute did not toll the limitations period. See id. at 261, 101 S.Ct. at 505.
On appeal Barfield argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because a material fact was in issue. Barfield claims that it was not satisfactorily established in district court that his employment had been terminated in April, 1979 thereby causing his claim to accrue. We have carefully studied the record, including the district court’s opinion and the briefs of the parties. We conclude that the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law exists. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8TH CIR.R. 14.
. The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Question: Did the court determine that it had jurisdiction to hear this case?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D