Mary Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action asserting claims under Title VII and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in its summary judgment decision. *319See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042, 1046 (8th Cir.2011) (en banc) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment; for Title VII discrimination claim, ultimate burden falls on plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence to create genuine issue of material fact regarding whether employer’s proffered nondiseriminatory justifications are mere pretext for intentional discrimination); see also Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996, 1007 (8th Cir.2012) (Family and Medical Leave Act discrimination claim requires showing that employee’s exercise of rights under Act played part in employer’s adverse decision).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.