Thurman

MEMORANDUM **

Dora Thurman, proceeding pro se, filed an employment discrimination claim *639 against Appellees (“General Mills”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 . Thurman appeals District Judge Wilson’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Mills. We have jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

To evaluate claims of intentional discrimination where intent itself is generally impossible to prove, courts apply a burden-shifting analysis. McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under McDonnell Douglas , if the plaintiff satisfies the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 . If the defense meets that burden, the plaintiff must prove that such a reason was merely a pretext for intentional discrimination. Tex. Dep’t. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).

Even assuming that Thurman established a prima facie case of discrimination, she has not met her burden because General Mills provided a…