Treda Vance appeals from the order of the District Court 1 granting summary judgment to her employer, the Arkansas Department of Human Services, and an administrator in her action asserting claims of race discrimination and retaliation. Following de novo review, we conclude that Vance did not show that retaliation was a determinative factor in the adverse employment action, and assuming that she established a prima facie case of race discrimination, she did not meet her obligation to show that her employer’s proffered reason for its action was pretextual. See Butler v. Crittenden Cnty., Ark, 708 F.3d 1044, 1048-49 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 628 F.3d 980, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2011) (setting out the framework for proving a claim of employment retaliation); Floyd-Gimon v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis. ex rel. The Bd. of Trs., 716 F.3d 1141, 1150 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that at the pretext stage of a discrimination case, the plaintiff must show that she *566 was similarly situated to the comparators in all relevant respects).

Accordingly, we affirm.