Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50078/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50078-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corazon McDonald
Appellant
John McHugh
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50078

Summary Calendar

CORAZON MCDONALD, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

JOHN MCHUGH, 

 Secretary of the Department of the United States Army,

 Defendant–Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-54

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Corazon McDonald, pro se, sued her employer through the Secretary of 

the Army under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50078 Document: 00513312180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2015
No. 15-50078

2

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. 

 Case: 15-50078 Document: 00513312180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2015