Summary
holding that a twelve-day suspension is an adverse employment action
Summary of this case from Sellers v. BNSF Ry. Co.Opinion
No. 07-51389 Summary Calendar.
September 30, 2008.
James Ashley Endicott, Jr., Endicott Law Offices, Harker Heights, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert Keith Shaw-Meadow, U.S. Attorney's Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 6:06-CV-242.
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Martha Jackson appeals a summary judgment entered on her claim of retaliation and on discrimination on account of race, sex, age, and religion. The district court entered a lengthy and convincing Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining why Jackson's suit has no merit. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by that court.
As the district court explained, plaintiff alleges "fourteen factually [discrete] occasions where she' claims her civil rights were violated." Some of those events, as the district court explained, do not constitute adverse employment actions. One incident — a twelve-day suspension — is an adverse action but, as the district court reasoned, there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
One incident deserves special mention. Jackson asserts that a lieutenant colonel uttered an extremely offensive and unacceptable racial epithet in reference to her. Although that conduct was reprehensible, Jackson has presented no evidence that the lieutenant colonel in question had authority over the employment decisions that Jackson questions or that the remark was in any way related to those employment actions.
In sum, Jackson has made no showing that any of the myriad actions complained of resulted from discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The district court has shown why summary judgment is amply justified.
AFFIRMED.