IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-50334
Summary Calendar
RENE D. MENDOZA
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(SA-97-CV-96)
October 23, 1998
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant, a former employee of the Texas Department of Human
Services (“TDHS”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in this employment discrimination case.
TDHS first sought summary judgment on Mendoza’s claims
regarding harassment, failure to promote, and disability
discrimination. A district court may consider only those grounds
of a Title VII or ADA complaint that were raised in the
administrative process. See Anderson v. Lewis Rail Serv. Co., 868
F.2d 774, 775 (5th Cir. 1989). Mendoza did not properly raise
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
these claims in the administrative process, so the claims could not
reasonably be expected to be within the scope of the EEOC’s
investigation. Thus, the district court did not err in rendering
summary judgment on these claims.
Mendoza also claimed that he was discharged because of his
race and gender. However, Mendoza did not establish a prima facie
case of either race-based or gender-based discrimination because he
failed to present proper summary judgment evidence that he was
replaced with a similarly qualified person outside the protected
class. See Ward v. Bechtel Corp., 102 F.3d 199, 202 (5th Cir.
1997).
Nevertheless, even assuming a prima facie case, TDHS
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging
Mendoza, and Mendoza presents no evidence casting doubt on the
legitimacy of TDHS’s reasons for Mendoza’s discharge. See St.
Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 510-511 (1993).
For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2