UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 02-10274
Summary Calendar
CATHLEEN P. RANCIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BAPTIST ST. ANTHONY’S HOSPITAL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division
(2:01-CV-210-J)
August 19, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cathleen Rancier appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of her former employer, Baptist St. Anthony
Hospital Corporation (“St. Anthony”). Rancier argues that she has
established a prima facie case for her claims that St. Anthony laid
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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
her off because of her race and age in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 2000e-2(a)(1), and the Age
Discrimination Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et. seq.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo. Chaney v. New Orleans Pub. Facility Mgmt., Inc., 179 F.3d
164, 167 (5th Cir. 1999); Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health &
Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1996). “Summary
judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Grimes, 102 F.3d at 139 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). In
employment discrimination cases, the question is whether a genuine
issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant intentionally
discriminated against the plaintiff. Id. Unsubstantiated
assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence. Chaney,
179 F.3d at 167; Grimes, 102 F.3d at 139.
A Title VII plaintiff bears the initial burden to prove a
prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801-03 (1973). “Once that showing has been
made, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action.”
Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 299 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-03). The plaintiff must then demonstrate
that the employer’s reason was pretext. Id. “Thus, a plaintiff’s
prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that
the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the
2
trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully
discriminated.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530
U.S. 133, 135 (2000).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rancier,
we find that St. Anthony presented evidence of nondiscriminatory
reasons for its decision to lay Rancier off, and that Rancier
failed to show pretext or falsity of the explanation. We therefore
affirm the district court’s order dated February 4, 2002.
AFFIRMED.
3