# Brown v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 22, 2004 · 112 F. App'x 998

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/37328

## Case

- **Full name:** Sharon MacK BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 22, 2004
- **Citations:** 112 F. App'x 998
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Garza, Demoss, Clement
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/37328

## Opinion text

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50477
Summary Calendar
______________________________

SHARON MACK BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant-Appellant.

---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CV-1032
----------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff, Sharon Mack Brown, sued the defendant, Farmers

Insurance Exchange, her employer, alleging race discrimination and

retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 200e et seq. Plaintiff’s principal claims revolved around

the failure of her employer to grant certain promotions because of

her race for which she had applied and for which she felt she was

qualified. Defendant answered and alleged various non-

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
discriminatory reasons for not granting the promotions Plaintiff

sought. After adequate discovery, Defendant moved for summary

judgment and the district court granted the motion. Plaintiff

appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself, and for the reasons stated

by the district court in its Order filed May 3, 2004, we affirm the

grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/37328. Public record. Not legal advice.