Case ID: f-appx_627/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Corazon McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John McHUGH, Secretary of the Department of the United States Army, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-50078
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 17, 2015.
    Corazon McDonald, San Antonio, TX, pro se.
    Robert Keith Shaw-Meadow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Corazón McDonald, pro se, sued her employer through the Secretary of the Army under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She appeals an adverse summary judgment.

The record establishes, inter alia, that McDonald failed the required background investigation and did not rectify the deficiencies. She had difficulties with time management and attendance and refused to sign a counseling letter. She displayed problems with anger management and was not completing assigned tasks in a timely and accurate manner. Eventually she was placed on administrative leave and was issued a notice of proposed removal from the job, whereupon she retired.

After some internal administrative proceedings, McDonald sued, alleging a hostile work environment and discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in a convincing order setting forth its reasons. Regarding a hostile work environment, the court noted that McDonald had produced “no evidence of objectively offensive behavior.” On the issues of discrimination and retaliation, the court noted that McDonald “has produced no evidence of disparate treatment ... [or] that she engaged in any protected activity prior to the alleged adverse employment actions.”

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court- has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.