Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in affirming the district court's decision regarding DEA employment discrimination claims under Title VII and discovery compliance

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit committed error when it affirmed the district court’s acceptance of DEA’s Notice of Discovery Compliance including a declaration from a DEA Senior Employment Attorney with no personal knowledge of all matters in his declaration which left Darnell with no discovery to defend herself : in summary judgment. : 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit committed error when it affirmed the district court’s final decision that Darnell’s termination claims did not meet the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. 3. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in denying Darnell’s overtime pay claims including claims under the ; continuing violations doctrine in a hostile work environment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2, states that, (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment . in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color religion, sex, or national origin. Petitioner maintains that, at all relevant times in this cause, she was a contract employee of DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration and Respondents) and therefore brings this cause of action under Title 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. The Fifth Circuit below held, in part, that, “Darnell must show she was replaced by someone ; outside her protected class, or that other similarly situated persons were treated more favorably. Darnell has presented no facts suggesting she was treated differently, and she was not replaced at all—her position was closed. Darnell’s claims fail. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by : accepting Defendants’ notice of discovery. Defendants reasonably complied with Darnell’s request.”