Yvonnie Williams v. CVS, et al, No. 13-40050 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-40050 Document: 00512312388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 18, 2013 No. 13-40050 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk YVONNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CVS; CVS PHARMACY, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (USDC No. 1:10-CV-156) Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Yvonnie Williams, a female African-American, was a long-time employee of Defendants-Appellees CVS; CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated ( CVS ). She appeals the summary judgment of the district court dismissing her Title VII race discrimination case that she filed after CVS fired her as manager of a CVS pharmacy following several formal counseling and warning communications by her superiors and replaced her with a white male. In a very * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40050 Document: 00512312388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2013 No. 12-40050 extensive and detailed, 33-page opinion, the district court laid out the applicable law and the facts in the light most favorable to Williams as non-movant. The court then concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved and that Williams had failed to bear her burden of proving that the non-discriminatory reasons given by CVS for the subject employment action were either pretextual or reflective of racial animus on the part of CVS. Our review of the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, the opinion of the district court, and the applicable law satisfies us that the judgment of the district court is correct in all respects. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.