UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 98-50082
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
TOYA TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SERGIOS SALON & SPA,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-97-CV-334)
______________________________________________________
July 24, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Toya Taylor challenges the district court's summary
judgment order dismissing her Title VII action seeking damages for
discriminatory discharge as manager of Appellee's salon. Taylor
alleges that she was terminated at least in part because she is
black.
The Appellee gave a number of reasons for discharging Ms.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Taylor. In general, the employer asserted that she received
several complaints from customers and other employees that Ms.
Taylor's work was deficient. More particularly, the employer
alleged that Ms. Taylor: (l) had left the salon for long periods of
time without permission; (2) had shortages in the cash register;
(3) failed to comply with the dress code; (4) had not accounted for
petty cash withdrawals; (5) had other employees close the salon;
and (6) had her hair done at other salons on company time.
In attempting to show that the employer's stated reasons for
her discharge were pretextual, Ms. Taylor's primary argument is
that no employee from her protected class has been fired for the
reasons stated by the employer. However, Ms. Taylor provided no
competent summary judgment evidence of other employees not in her
protected class who had committed similar infractions. Ms. Taylor
also admitted that before her termination the employer counseled
her about those violations. She does not dispute the employer's
summary judgment evidence that she was only terminated after
subsequent violations occurred.
Assuming without deciding that Ms. Taylor stated a prima facie
case, we agree with the district court that the employer stated
adequate, non-discriminatory grounds for discharging Ms. Taylor and
Ms. Taylor's summary judgment evidence was insufficient to show
that those reasons were pretextual.
For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2