Case ID: f-appx_380/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THU THANH BUI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HORSESHOE ENTERTAINMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-30234
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 7, 2010.
    Thu Thanh Bui, Boosier City, LA, pro se.
    S. Price Barker, Brian R. Carnie, Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Thu Thanh Bui appeals the dismissal of her discrimination suit against her former employer, Horseshoe Entertainment (“Horseshoe”). Bui was a chip runner and later a brush person at a casino operated by Horseshoe. She aspired to become a poker dealer, but management determined she was not proficient enough at dealing to merit the promotion. After more than a year on the job, during which she accumulated a documented record of strained relations with co-workers and managers, Bui was fired for gross insubordination. She challenged her termination before an internal review board, which upheld the firing. She then sought and obtained a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Bui sued Horseshoe pro se, alleging that she had unlawfully been denied promotion, was subject to a hostile environment, and was terminated on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and age in violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court granted Horseshoe summary judgment.

The district court’s order was accompanied by a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. In summary, a number of Bui’s claims are time-barred by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). Bui failed to make a 'pri-ma facie showing of discrimination on each of her remaining claims. We affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.