Rozlon Thomas appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action against her former employer, in which she asserted race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Upon careful de novo review, see Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (standard of review; same analysis applies to Title VII and MHRA claims), we conclude that the district court’s decision was correct, see Jackman v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 728 F.3d 800, 804 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing standards applicable to claims of unlawful retaliation; to establish claim of retaliation, plaintiff must show that retaliation was “but for” cause of adverse employment action); Gibson v. Am. Greetings Carp., 670 F.3d 844, 852-55 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing standards applicable to race discrimination claims; affirming summary judgment for defendant where plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to create genuine issue regarding pretext).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.