Summary
finding infractions of company policy are legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination
Summary of this case from Meade v. Ingram Micro, Inc.Opinion
No. 13-40050
07-18-2013
YVONNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CVS; CVS PHARMACY, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees
Summary Calendar
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 1:10-CV-156)
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Plaintiff-Appellant Yvonnie Williams, a female African-American, was a long-time employee of Defendants-Appellees CVS; CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated ("CVS"). She appeals the summary judgment of the district court dismissing her Title VII race discrimination case that she filed after CVS fired her as manager of a CVS pharmacy following several formal counseling and warning communications by her superiors and replaced her with a white male. In a very extensive and detailed, 33-page opinion, the district court laid out the applicable law and the facts in the light most favorable to Williams as non-movant. The court then concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved and that Williams had failed to bear her burden of proving that the non-discriminatory reasons given by CVS for the subject employment action were either pretextual or reflective of racial animus on the part of CVS. Our review of the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, the opinion of the district court, and the applicable law satisfies us that the judgment of the district court is correct in all respects. AFFIRMED.