Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20652/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20652-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Houston Independent School District
Appellee
Scwyana Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20652

SCWYANA SMITH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-3083

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Scwyana Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the 

summary judgment of the district court in favor of Defendant-Appellee 

Houston Independent School District (“HISD”) dismissing her claims under 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We affirm.

In 2011, HISD implemented a reduction in force in response to a 

statewide budget shortfall. Smith was an at-will employee at the time, holding

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-20652 Document: 00513615448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
No. 15-20652

the position of General Clerk III, as did three other African American 

employees. HISD notified all four that two of the positions would be eliminated. 

It then interviewed the four employees and assigned letter grades based on 

their performances. Smith and another General Clerk III employee were 

terminated.

Smith challenged her termination through internal school district 

grievance procedures and then through the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”). Neither HISD nor the EEOC found any violations. She 

then brought suit under Title VII for religious discrimination, race 

discrimination, age discrimination, sex discrimination, retaliation, and 

disparate impact. The district court dismissed her age and sex discrimination

claims as not properly exhausted. The court subsequently granted summary 

judgment for HISD on Smith’s remaining claims, concluding that she had

failed to make a prima facie case of race discrimination, religious 

discrimination, and retaliation, and that she had not properly exhausted her 

disparate impact claim.

Our detailed review of the entire record on appeal, including the briefs 

of the parties and the record excerpts, leads us to conclude that the district 

court committed no reversible error in any of its rulings. We therefore affirm 

that court’s summary judgment, in all respects.1

1 We deny Smith’s motion to strike HISD’s Appellee Brief, and grant HISD’s motion 

to supplement the record.

2

 

 Case: 15-20652 Document: 00513615448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2016