Case: 20-10673 Document: 00515685880 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 28, 2020
No. 20-10673 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Kim Garza,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Arlington Independent School District,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court,
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-829
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff Kim Garza appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
various employment discrimination claims against Arlington Independent
School District (“AISD”) after she voluntarily stopped teaching there. After
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10673 Document: 00515685880 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2020
No. 20-10673
reviewing the court’s opinions, the briefing and pertinent portions of the
record, we find no reversible errors of law or fact in the district court’s
opinion and therefore AFFIRM.
On March 22, 2017, Garza filed a charge with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging age discrimination, race
discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation. She received
a right to sue letter from the EEOC on November 27, 2017, but her lawyer
did not file suit in district court within the required 90 days. She was issued
a second right to sue letter on March 22, 2018 for her discrimination claims
of discrimination and retaliation based on age, disabilities, gender, and
ethnicity.
In an August 5, 2019 order, the district court reviewed all her claims
on a Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed as untimely her
claims of race discrimination, national origin discrimination, and sex
discrimination under Title VII as well as a Title VI claim, because the
allegations were exactly the same as those for which the time limit had
expired based on the first right to sue letter. The district court also dismissed
the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for failing to state a claim because Plaintiff failed
to allege facts establishing the AISD school board engaged in a well-
established custom of discrimination against her. The district court left in
place Garza’s claims for age discrimination (“ADEA”), claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII retaliation and
hostile work environment.
At the summary judgment stage, the district court again carefully
reviewed the remaining claims in an order dated May 29, 2020. The court
found insupportable Garza’s ADEA, ADA, and Title VII claims because
Garza suffered no adverse employment action. As she admitted in her
deposition, she voluntarily resigned from AISD following a lengthy period of
2
Case: 20-10673 Document: 00515685880 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2020
No. 20-10673
leave. The court also rejected her hostile work environment claim as a matter
of law because she provided no evidence that any of the alleged harassment
or discrimination occurred on account of her ethnicity or gender. Thus, she
failed to establish the element requiring that the alleged harassment be based
on a protected characteristic.
In her appellate brief, Garza does not cite caselaw to support her
arguments or apply law to facts. Instead, she pastes a string of record
citations that she claims were in an appendix to a prior motion for summary
judgment. See Denton Cty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.,
962 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2020) (appellant waives a challenge by failing to
adequately brief the issue.). Garza’s briefing is insufficient to support the
points she has raised, and the claims are therefore waived. See Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a); 5th Cir. R. 28.2-3. In any event, based on the above summary of the
district court’s decisions, and having reviewed the underlying contentions
carefully, we find no reversible error of law or fact.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3