her name from consideration and understood that she would have been given the offer if she reconsidered, Lindsley was not rejected.
We agree. The record is undisputed that Lindsley understood she would get the job if she reconsidered. She testified in her deposition that she did “not feel that it is appropriate for someone to start a job when their boss already has this kind of relationship from the interview.” She said: “I felt at that point that he was being forced to take me and I want to earn my promotions on my own merits.” Lindsley disputes what occurred during her final, ten-minute interview with Sondern. But that dispute is immaterial because it does not change the fact that Sondern later traveled to Corpus Christi and essentially offered Lindsley the job. Lindsley was thus not rejected by Omni—she rejected the opportunity. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment for Omni on her promotional discrimination claims.
V.
Lindsley’s retaliation claims fare no better. She alleged that Omni retaliated against her, first, for filing an EEOC charge, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the Texas Labor Code, Tex. Labor Code § 21.001 et seq., and second, for requesting and eventually taking FMLA leave, in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a).
We analyze retaliation claims under Title VII, the Texas Labor Code, and the FMLA pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, and we are offered no reason why we should not do the same under the Equal Pay Act. See Wheat v. Fla. Par. Juv. Just. Comm’n, 811 F.3d 702, 705 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Retaliation claims under both Title VII and the FMLA … are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.”); Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Tex., L.L.C., 753 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2014) (“The substantive law governing Title VII and [Texas Labor
11
