IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
FILED
_____________________ January 2, 2008
No. 07-20584
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
LOUATRICE HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON
CANCER CENTER,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
U.S. 4:06-CV-569
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Louatrice Henderson appeals the district court’s
summary judgment dismissal of her employment discrimination and
retaliation claims against Defendant-Appellee University of Texas M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center (“M. D. Anderson”) and one of its supervisory
managers, Anne Speed. We affirm.
Henderson is a black female, approximately 50 years of age, who had
worked in M. D. Anderson’s Human Resources Department since 1997 when
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
she saw her job eliminated in a far-reaching departmental reorganization.
She thereafter failed to obtain renewed employment with M. D. Anderson in
its rehiring and reassignment program for those similarly situated to
Henderson as a result of that reorganization. She was, however, considered,
along with others, through that comprehensive process which included
interviews with and recommendations by a three-person interview committee
comprising a black female superior and two other M. D. Anderson employees
who were older than Henderson. Among the similarly situated employees
who were rehired or reassigned were several black females, and among those
who, like Henderson, were not were several white employees, including some
younger than Henderson.
The recommendations of the interview committee were forwarded to
Speed who, in almost every instance, followed the committee’s
recommendations. In Henderson’s case, the black female member of the
interview committee testified that Henderson had not interviewed well and
was lacking in other particulars.
After extensive consideration of the large volume of data assembled in
the record of this case and due consideration of the positions advanced by the
opposing parties, the district court filed a comprehensive Memorandum
Opinion and Order in which the court analyzed the situation and ultimately
granted the summary judgment motions of M. D. Anderson and Speed,
2
dismissing all of Henderson’s claims not previously eliminated.
We have now reviewed in detail the record on appeal and the briefs
filed by counsel for the parties, as a result of which we are satisfied that the
rulings and holdings of the district court from which Henderson appeals
should be affirmed for essentially the reasons set forth by the court in its
opinion.
AFFIRMED.
3