Ray v. Levi Strauss & Co

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 31, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 06-60509
Summary Calendar
_______________________
REGINA RAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEVI STRAUSS & CO,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
No. 3:04-CV-558
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Regina Ray appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment to Levi Strauss & Company (“Levi Strauss”) on
her age discrimination claim. The district court correctly
concluded that Ray cannot show that Levi Strauss’s legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason — Ray’s poor performance — is pretextual.
Having carefully reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs and
pertinent parts of the record, we find no reversible error of law

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Ray also contends that the district court erred in applying pre-
Reeves case law to her employment discrimination case; however, a careful review
of the district court’s opinion reveals that the court applied the correct legal
standards. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.
Ct. 2097 (2000); Bryant v. Compass Group USA Inc., 413 F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir.
2005) (citing Little v. Republic Refining Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir. 1991)).
2
or fact and therefore AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by
the trial court.1

-- 2 of 2 --