Case Name: Mariah Hill SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, individually and doing business as Parkland Health and Hospital System, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-23
Citations: 85 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 03-10494
Parties: Mariah Hill SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, individually and doing business as Parkland Health and Hospital System, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
Mariah Hill SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, individually and doing business as Parkland Health and Hospital System, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-10494
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 2003.
William M. Lamoreaux, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael V. Abcarian, Epstein, Becker, Green, Wickliff & Hall, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff — Appellant, Mariah Hill Scott (hereinafter, "Scott") appeals the district court's decision granting Defendant — Appellee's, Parkland Health and Hospital System (hereinafter, "Parkland"), motion for summary judgment on Scott's claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206.
Scott contends that she established a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and that Parkland failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing its affirmative defense of an objective merit pay system. Scott argues that Parkland's pay system included the subjective component of employee evaluations, and that summary judgment was, therefore, not warranted.
A review of the record, however, confirms that Parkland satisfied its burden, and that Scott failed to identify specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's decision.
. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.