Julie Cyprow v. TX Department of Public Safety, et al

Filing 920100326

Case: 09-20476

Document: 00511063654

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/26/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
March 26, 2010 No. 09-20476 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

JULIE CYPROW Plaintiff - Appellant v. TEX. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CV-3045

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this employment discrimination/retaliation case, the plaintiff-appellant, Julie Cyprow, challenges the district court's summary judgment in favor of the

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.

*

Case: 09-20476

Document: 00511063654

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/26/2010

No. 09-20476 defendant-appellee, Sgt. Torres,1 arguing that genuine issues of material fact were presented. We have carefully reviewed the summary judgment record, including the abundant evidence of customer and co-worker complaints regarding the appellant's rude and unprofessional conduct toward the patrons and employees of the South Gessner Driver License Office--both before and after Sgt. Torres became the appellant's supervisor. We find no genuine issue of material fact and agree with the district court that the appellant's rude, unprofessional conduct was the reason for her termination, rather than any discriminatory or retaliatory intent on the part of her immediate supervisor, Sgt. Torres. For these reasons and the reasons stated by the district court in its careful opinion dated June 17, 2009, we affirm the district court's judgment.

Initially the plaintiff-appellant brought suit against her former employer, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and supervisors, Sgt. Torres and Captain Norma GarzaJennings. However, on appeal, the appellant argues only that the district court erred in dismissing Sgt. Torres.

1

2