Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0792-01.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

Lucy DORANTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER AT EL PASO, et al, Defendants, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-50786
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 27, 2004.
    Michael Cohen, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Russ Harris, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lucy Dorantes (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) brought this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”) against her employer, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso (hereinafter “Defendant”) alleging that she was fired in retaliation for reporting to her supervisors that other employees were unhappy about certain alleged misconduct on the part of the supervisor. After adequate discovery which established that Plaintiff was actually terminated for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons related to her long history of poor work performance, Defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant holding that Plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that she engaged in activity protected under Title VII or TCHRA and that Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the termination and any protected activity. Plaintiff timely appealed to this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion and order filed on June 23, 2003, we affirm the final judgment in favor of Defendant filed on June 23,2003. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in. 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.