Opinion ID: 37640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: terminated.

Text: Because the district court’s opinion1 ade- quately lays out the facts underlying Stith’s On August 15, 2001, Stith filed a charge of lawsuit, we only briefly summarize them here. discrimination based on race, sex, age, and reSmith, a black woman who was sixty-seven taliation with the EEOC, which rejected it as years old at the times in question, worked for untimely. She then sued Perot, claiming violaPerot’s Healthcare Division as a “Senior Spe- tions of title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), the cialist-Staffing.” She had been commuting on Age Discrimination in Employment Act a weekly basis from her home in Houston to (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 619 et seq., and the Dallas, the location of the leadership of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 255, for Healthcare Division. While in Dallas, she alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and would stay in a corporate apartment, and Perot age and on retaliation under the ADEA and would reimburse her for travel and other ex- title VII. penses.