Case ID: f-appx_209/html/0923-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Laura CAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, VAXIN, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-16848.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 7, 2006.
    Cynthia Forman Wilkinson, Wilkinson Law Firm, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Tyrone Quarles, Office of Counsel, Lisa Johnson Sharp, Balch & Bingham, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the district court is due to be affirmed. For the reasons discussed at oral argument, the alleged hostile environment did not rise to the necessary level of severity or pervasiveness, and even if it did, plaintiff cannot surmount the Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998), defense. With respect to the promotion of Dr. Siegel, plaintiff was not qualified. Moreover, no reasonable jury could find pretext in light of the legitimate business reason. With respect to plaintiffs retaliation claim, no reasonable jury could find retaliation in light of the fact that plaintiff was not qualified for the position to which Dr. Siegel was promoted. We note that appellant’s initial brief fails to preserve any challenge to any later denial of a promotion, either as a substantive challenge or as an alleged action taken in retaliation for protected conduct.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Any claim with respect to Dr. Reddy is time-barred.
     
      
      . In light of our disposition, we need not address plaintiff's argument about the joint employer theory. Appellee Vaxin’s motion for double costs and attorney fees on appeal is Denied.