Case Name: Sharon L. MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-09
Citations: 622 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 15-1901
Parties: Sharon L. MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
Sharon L. MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1901.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 5, 2015.
Filed: Nov. 9, 2015.
Sharon L. Meeks, Little Rock, AR, pro se.
Patrick E. Hollingsworth, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sharon Meeks appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her Title VII employment discrimination action against the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Jain v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 779 F.3d 753, 759 (8th Cir.2015) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo). As to Meeks's failure-to-promote and failure-to-reinstate discrimination claims, we agree with the district court that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585-86 (8th Cir.2005) (dismissal of claim for lack of exhaustion is reviewed de novo; discussing exhaustion requirement as applied to distinct claims). As to her discriminatory discharge claim, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that DHHS's proffered non-discriminatory explanation for her termination was a pretext for racial discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (burden-shifting analytical framework); Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925, 935 (8th Cir.2006) (to prove pretext, plaintiff must both discredit asserted reason for termination and show that circumstances permit drawing reasonable inference that real reason for termination was unlawful discrimination).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.