UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-50226
Summary Calendar
JoMarie Parise,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CenturyTel Telecommunications, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
( 00-CV-180 )
October 1, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
JoMarie Parise appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of her former employer, CenturyTel
Telecommunications, Inc. (“CenturyTel”). Parise argues that she
has established a prima facie case for her claims that CenturyTel
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
refused to promote her and eventually fired her because of her
gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1) (1994).
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, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824 (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 trier of fact to conclude
that the employer unlawfully discriminated.” Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109
(2000).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Parise, we
find that CenturyTel presented evidence of nondiscriminatory
reasons for its decision not to promote and eventually to fire
Parise, and that Parise failed to show pretext or falsity of the
explanation. We therefore affirm the district court’s order dated
November 30, 2000.
AFFIRMED.