Thomas v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit July 3, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50015
Summary Calendar
TAMMY A. THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division
(SA-01-CV-677)
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Tammy Thomas appeals from the district court’s grant
of summary judgment to defendant the Texas Dept. of Criminal
Justice (TDCJ) in her claims alleging disability discrimination in
violation of the Texas Labor Code, race discrimination in violation
of Title VII, and illegal retaliation through creation of a hostile
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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-
workplace environment. We review the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, employing the same criteria used in that
court. Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, 87 F.3d 755, 758
(5th Cir. 1996).
Thomas first argues that the district court erred in granting
TDCJ summary judgment on her claim alleging discrimination under
the Texas Labor Code. TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 21.051 (Vernon 2002).
While Thomas acknowledges she is not “disabled” in terms of the
statute, she claims that the TDCJ regarded her as such, bringing
her within the ambit of Texas anti-discrimination law. This
argument is meritless however, as Thomas had not adduced sufficient
evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the TDCJ regarded her as disabled. Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92
F.3d 329, 332 (5th Cir. 1996).
Thomas next argues that the district court incorrectly granted
the TDCJ summary judgment on her race discrimination claim. The
district court found that Thomas did not suffer from an adverse
employment action, and therefore did not make out a prima facie
case of race discrimination. Okoye v. Tex. Houston Health Science
Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 513 (5th Cir. 2001); Burger v. Central
Apartment Management, Inc., 168 F.3d 875, 879-80 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because Thomas does not directly contest this determination, her
appeal on this ground is waived for inadequate briefing. Raven
Servs. Corp. v. NLRB, 315 F.3d 499, 504 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002).
Thomas finally appeals from the district court’s determination
-2-
that she failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on her
hostile workplace retaliation claim. Because Thomas offers no more
than mere conclusory assertions that the TDCJ workplace was
hostile, summary judgment was proper. Ramsey v. Henderson, 286
F.3d 264, 269 (5th Cir. 2002).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-3-