Court Opinion

ID: 4020120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-29 18:01:03.395926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:58.902589
License: Public Domain

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 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 discrimina
   
   *522
   
  tion, 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
  

   *
  

   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
  

   1
  

   . We deny Smith's motion to strike HISD’s Appellee Brief, and grant HISD's motion to supplement the record.