Opinion ID: 4537907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Racial discrimination and retaliation

Text: Parker asserts her termination was a result of racial discrimination, but she provides no factual or legal support for this argument. Her amended complaint does not assert a racial discrimination claim and contains no allegations that could be construed as alleging racial discrimination. Further, Parker testified in a deposition that she had three claims, which were based on sexual harassment, her disability, and retaliation. Her failure to offer any reasoning or factual support for her claim causes us to conclude it is “wholly without merit.” See 16 Front Street, L.L.C. v. Mississippi Silicon, L.L.C., 886 F.3d 549, 561 (5th Cir. 2018). Parker’s appellate brief also refers to “retaliation” alongside racial discrimination. Parker provides no factual or legal support for this claim either. Her appellate brief reference is solely in a subheading. Parker has abandoned her retaliation claim by not briefing the issue on appeal. Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 2016). 4 Case: 19-30785 Document: 00515434260 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/29/2020 No. 19-30785