Filed: Dec. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-50502 Summary Calendar GLINDA HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WASHINGTON COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (A-96-CV-614) December 5, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Glinda Hoskins, an African-American female, was employed by the Washington County Sheriff’s Department from March 1990 to November 1994. She alle
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-50502 Summary Calendar GLINDA HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WASHINGTON COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (A-96-CV-614) December 5, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Glinda Hoskins, an African-American female, was employed by the Washington County Sheriff’s Department from March 1990 to November 1994. She alleg..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-50502
Summary Calendar
GLINDA HOSKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(A-96-CV-614)
December 5, 1997
Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Glinda Hoskins, an African-American female, was
employed by the Washington County Sheriff’s Department from March
1990 to November 1994. She alleges discrimination based on race
and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
reasoning Plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies with respect to the sex discrimination claim and did not
produce evidence proving her discharge was racially motivated with
respect to the race discrimination claim.
After carefully reviewing the briefs, record excerpts, and
relevant portions of the record itself, we find no reversible
error. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated by the
district court in its order dated May 22, 1997.