Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40282
J OSE PHI NE V. P UENTE P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. TOM RI DGE, S ECRET ARY, DEP ART M ENT OF HOM EL AND SE CURI TY D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 04- C V

- 267
B ef ore G A R W O O D , O W E N , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg e: * Tw o s hi ps pa s s e d i n t he ni ght , and t hi s c as e r e s ul t e d. At o r ala r gum e nt o f t hi s c as e , Pl ai nt i f

f

- Appe l l antJ o s e phi ne V. Pue nt e a r gue d t h at she l o s t t he ord i n a ry bre a k s give n to allsi m i l a rl y-sit u a ted em p l oy ee s ( tw o tw en ty-m i n u te br eaks and one t hi r t y- m i nute l unch br eak) bec ause she use d so m e of t hat br eak ti m e to ex p ress b rea st m i l k f oll ow i n g th e b i rth of h er ch i l d
. T h e D efen d a n tA ppel l ee , t he Sec r et ar y o f H om el and Secur i t y ( t he “ Sec r et ar y” ) , c onc ede d ator al
a r g u m e n t t h a t s u c h co n d u c t w o u ld b e im p r o p e r . B u t th e S e c r e ta r y s a y s th a t is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40282

2 n ot w h at t h i s c ase i s abou t . I n st ead , i t i s abou t P u en t e’ s r equ estto get addi t i o nalp a id b r e a k s o n to p o f th e s e v e n ty m in u te s a lr e a d y a llo c a te d to a ll
em pl oyees. For h er part , P u en t e conceded at oralargu m en t t h at s h e w as not en t i t l ed to preferenti al t reat m en t i n t h e for m of ad di t i on al p ai d break s. W i t h so m uc h ag r e e m e nt , w e ar e l e f t t o puz z l e o ve r ho w t hi s c as e ha s t ak e n ne ar l y ni ne ye ar s t o r e ac h us in a stat e w he r e t he pa r t i e s di s ag r e e o ve r w hatt he d i s a g r e e m e n t i s . F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h b e l o w, we AF FI RM
. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND P u en t e w as em pl oyed a s a B order P atr olA gen t ( “ B P A ” ) w i t h w h at i s now t h e D epa rt m en t of H om el an d S ecuri t y ( “ D H S ” ) at t h e Y sl et a B order Pa t rol St at i on fac i l i t y i n E lPaso , Texas
. I n January 2 000, Pu ent e g ave bi r t h t o a baby g ir l a n d e le c te d to b r e a s t fe e d
. S h e re tu r n e d to fu ll-d u ty s ta tu s a s a B P A in M arch 20 00. D u ri n g h er sh i f t , P u en t e took break s t o express breastm i l k, w h i ch requ i red her to l eave her regular post, t ravel t o t h e E lP aso P ortof E n t ry Stati on w h e r e s h e c o u ld e x p r e s s h e r b r e a s t m ilk p r iv a te ly , cle a n a n d s to r e h e r p u m p in
a s ec ure l oc at i on, an d ret urn to h erpost . D H S’ s br eak pol i c y al l ow ed B PA s at th e E l P a so fa ci l i ty tw o pa i d , tw en ty-m i n u te b rea k s an d on e p a i d , thirty-m i n u te lu n c h p e r io d p e r s h ift. O n Apr i l2 , 2 00 0, Pue nt e w r o t e a m e m o r and um t o Rob e r t J
. C ran st o n, Pat r o lAge nt i n Char ge a t t he Ys l e t a St at i o n, no t i f yi n g m an agem e nt t hats he
n ee d ed bre a k s to go i n to the P ort of E n try to ex p r e s s m ilk o n c e ev ery thre e to f o ur ho ur s a nd t hats he w o ul d ne e d a c l e an and s e c ur e ar e a t o s t o r e he r pum p. O n Apr i l1 3, Pue nt e a nd h e r uni o n s t e w ar d, Ji m St ac k, m e t w i t h Cr ans t o n a nd t he Pat r o lAge nt I n Char ge , St uar t W o odsi de. D ur i ng t hatm e e t i ng, s he
r e pe at e d t hatr e que s t , a s ki ng f o r t hi r t y m i nut e s pe r b r e ak
. Cr ans t o n a nd W oo dsi de i nf

or m ed P uent e t hat D H S w oul d ac c om m odat e he r r eques t , but t hat
s h e w o u l d h a v e t o e i t h e r t a k e l e a v e o r e x t e n d h e r s h i f t t o a c c o u n t f

o r t h e t i me she w as r eques t i ng.N o. 08- 40282

3 I n A ugust 2 0 0 0 , Pue nt e f i l ed a for m al c om pl ai nt w i t h t he E qual Em pl o ym e nt O ppo r t uni t y Com m i s s i o n ( “ EE O C” ) a l l e gi n g di s c r i m i nat i o n a nd ret al i ati on un der T i t l e V II of t h e C i vi lR i gh t s A ctof 196 4, 42 U
. S
. C
. § 2000 e et seq . , a s a m e nde d b y t he Pr e gna nc y D i s c r i m i nat i o n Ac t , 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 2 00 0e ( k) ( 20 08 ) ( t he “ PD A” )
. The a dm i ni s t r at i ve l aw j udg e r ul e d i n Pue nt e ’ s fav o r , a nd t h e O f f i ce of F ederal O perati on s ( “ O F O ” ) u ph el d t h e ru l i n g. T h e O F O ordered D H S t o re sto re P u en t e’ s l eave ti m e an d to pa y h er $10, 000 i n com pen sator y d a m a ge s. D H S req u e s te d re con sider a ti on , bu t t h e O F O de n i ed the req u est. D H S di d n ot com pl y w i t h t h e E E O C ’ s or der. D i ssat i sf

i ed w i t h t h e am ou n t aw ard ed to h er by t h e E E O C , P u en t e f i l ed
a c i vi l sui t i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i c t C our t f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c t of Texas a ga i n st t h e S ecre tary , all eg i n g g en d er d i scrim i n a ti on , retali a ti on , d i sp a ra te t r e at m e nt , a nd h o s t i l e w ork en vi ronm e nt und e r Ti t l e VI I , a s a m e nde d b y t he PD A
. Puent e r eques t ed a j ury t r i aland t he f ol l ow i ng r em edi es : ( 1) reim b u rsem en t of

h er ex p en ses i n cu rred after a tra n sfer f rom E l P a so to M c A l l en, Texas , ( 2) r es t or at i on o f l eave t i m e, ( 3) f

r ont and bac k pay, ( 4) at t or ney’ s fee s, ( 5) $300, 000 i n statuto r y c om pensa t or y dam ages , and ( 6)
m on et ary da m ages f or em ot i on al an d p h ysi calha rm , or ( 7) “ i n t h e al t erna t i ve a l u m p su m of th ree m i l l i on do l l a rs. ” T h e Secret ary m oved t o di sm i ss P u en t e’ s clai m s un der F ederal R u l e of C iv ilP r o c e d u r e 1 2 (b )( 6 ). T h e S e c r e t a r y m a d e tw o c o n t e n t io n s –(1 ) P u e n t e ’s
va gue pl e ad i ngs di d notst at e a cl ai m und e r a ny t he o r y, a nd ( 2) Ti t l e VI I a nd t he PD A do not of

ferpr ot ec t i on t o a br east- fee di ng w om an bas ed o n her s t at us as such
. Th e di st ri ct court h el d t h at P u en t e’ s “ deci si on t o breast feed .
. . [ di d] n ot a ffo r d h e r p r o te c tio n u n d e r t h e P D A (a n d a s a re s u lt n e ith e r u n d e r T itle V II ),”
a n d gr a n ted the S ecre tary ’ s m oti on as to th e g en d er d i scrim i n a ti on , disp a ra te t reat m en t , an d h ost i l e w ork en vi ronm en t cl ai m s. H ow e ver, t h e di st ri ctcourtN o. 08- 40282

4 al l ow e d Pue nt e t o pr o c e e d wi t h he r r e t al i at i o n c l ai m b e c aus e t hatc l ai m “ [ di d]
n o t n e c e s s a r il y h in g e o n [P u e n t e ’s ] s t a t u s a s a ‘w o m e n [s ic ] w h o b r e a s t fe e d s .’” T h e Secret ary la te r m oved f or and t h e di st ri ctcourt gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t as t o P u en t e’ s r et al i ati on cl ai m . Th e di st ri ctco u rthel d that even
a s s u m in gth e r e w a s c ir c u m s t a n t ia l e v id e n c e o f a c a u s a l li n k b e t w e e n P u e n t e ’s pr o t e c t e d EE O C ac t i vi t y and D H S’ s adv e r s e em pl o ym e nt dec i s i o n ( i
. e. , “ f o r c i ng [ P u en t e] t o tak e u n pa i d l eave i n ord er f or h er to h ave ad equ ate t i m e t o express breast m i l k”) , t h e Secret ary “a ss ert ed a l egi t i m ate, non - di scr i m i n ator y reason for i t s ac t i o ns [ , ] and t he r e [ w as ] no e vi de nc e t hat t he
. . . gi ve n r e as o n [ w as] pretext u al
. ” P u en t e a pp eal s the di sm i ssalof h er d i scr i m i n ati on an d ret al i ati on cl ai m s. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t’s D e N o v o R e v ie w o f P u e n te ’ s C la im s B ef ore arg u ing the m eri t s of her di scr i m i n ati on an d ret al i ati on cl ai m s, P u en t e f

i rstrai ses t h e i ssue of w h e th e r t h e di st ri ctcourt shou l d h ave given greaterw ei gh t t o t h e E E O C ’ s deci si on rat h er t h an condu ct i n g a de n ovo revi ew of herc l ai m . Pu ent e arg ues thatshe di d n oth ave t o co m pl y w i t h t he pr oc edur al requ i rem en t s art i cul ated by 29 C
. F
. R
. § 1614
. 504 ( 200 9) becau se s h e com pl i ed
w i th the directi ve s of th e O F O ’ s f i n a lde ci sion
. C on seq u en tl y, accor d i n g to Puen t e , he r c o m pl ai nt sho ul d hav e be e n t r e at e d as se e ki ng e nf o r c e m e nt o f

t he EE OC ’ s d e c i s i o n r a t h e r t h a n s e e k i n gd e n o v o r e v i e w. A fe d e r a l e m p lo y e e w h o re c e iv e s a fa v o r a b le E E O C d e c is io n m a y s u e in fe de r aldi s t r i c t c o ur t e i t he r t o e nf o r c e t hatde c i s i o n or t o ha ve t he c o m pl ai nt
r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . S ee 2 9 C .F .R
. § 1 6 1 4 .50 3 (g ); 4 2 U .S .C
. § 2 0 0 0 e -1 6 (c); C h an d l er v. R ou d ebu sh , 425 U
. S. 840, 846- 56 ( 1 9 7 6 ). P uent e s ought r el i ef far i n exc es s of

the r em edi es provi ded i n t he E E O C orde r , w hi c h dem ons t r at es t hat
s h e w a s s e e k in gd e n o v o re v ie w ra th e r th a n e n fo r c e m e n t. Ti m m on s v. W h i te , 3 1 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 2 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); seeMassi ngi l lv. Ni chols on , 496 F. 3d 382,N o. 08- 40282

A plaintiff is not requir ed to comply with § 161 4.50 4’s procedural requirements to seek 1 den ovo revie w o f h erTitleVI Ic laim
. See 4 2 U .S .C
. § 2 0 0 0 e- 1 6 (c). “F ederal Ruleof Civil Procedure 8 (a)(2) requires ‘a short and plain state ment of th e 2 clai m showin g that th e pl eade r i s entitle d to relief,’ in order to ‘ giveth e de fendant fair notice of what th e . . . clai m is and thegrou nds upon whichitrests.’” Bel l At l. C or p. v . Tw om b ly , 55 0 U. S. 544, 555 (200 7) (q uoti ng F ED . R. C IV . P. 8 (a)( 2 ))
. Puente h as also all eged h ara ssingbehavior byoth er B PAs seemin gly in an effort to 3 support her discriminationcl aim. Spe cific ally, Pu entemaintaine d th at although she inf o r m ed man agem ent s he wo uld nee d a clean are a to st oreher breas t pum p, she w as f orc ed toleave the brea st pump in the processinga r eao f t he port of entry, and, as aresult, seve ral agents tampere d withh er b reast pump to“satisfy their curiosity.” These facts are cont ain ed in the summary -ju dgment re cord, noti n t he complaint; th erefo re, we will not consi der them in determinin g wheth er the distric t co urt’s 12 (b) ( 6) dismissal of h er discriminationcl aim was prop er . See Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean W itter , 2 2 4F .3 d 4 9 6 , 4 9 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 0). 5 3 8 4

– 8 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); Hodge v. Pot t er , 2 5 7 F . A p p ’ x 7 2 8 , 7 3 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). R eg a rd l es s , e n forcem en t of the E E O C ord er w a s n ot an av en u e a va i l a b l e to P u en t e i n th e di st ri ctcourt becau se s h e di d n ot noti f y t h e E E O C of

her
e m p lo y e r ’s n o n -c o m p lia n c e . S ee 2 9 C. F. R. § 1 61 4. 50 4( a) ( “ I f t he c o m pl ai nant be l i e ve s t hatt he a ge nc y has fai l e d t o c o m pl y w i t h t he t e r m s o f a . . . de c i s i o n, t he
co m p la in a n t sh a lln o tify th e E E O D ire cto r . . . o f th e a ll e g e d n o n co m p li a n ce .”) ; s e e als o Sande r s v . Ren o , 1 86 F. 3d 6 84 , 6 85 ( 5th C i r . 1 99 9)
. Ac c o r di ngl y, t he 1 d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly co n d u c te d a d e n o v o re v ie w o f P u e n te ’ s cla im s . B . P u e n te ’ s D is c r im in a tio n C la im P u en t e nex t chal l en ges t h e di st ri ct court’ s di sm i ssalof her di scr i m i n ati on c la im u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). T h e d is t r ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t w h il e P u e n t e ’s
com pl ai n t “ coul d cert ai n l y be cl earer and m ore det ai l ed, ” i t sat i sf i ed the n ot i ce requ i rem en t s of

F ederal R u l e of

C i vi lP rocedure 8( a)
. N on et h el ess, the d i st ri ct 2
c o ur t di s m i s s e d Pue nt e ’ s di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m unde r Rul e 1 2(b) ( 6) , c o nc l udi ng t hat herdec i si on t o b r eas t fee d d i d notaf f or d herpr ot ec t i on under Ti t l e VII as a m e n d e d b y th e P D A
. P u e n te a r g u e s o n a p p e a l th a t h e r d is c r im in a tio n cla im
s ho ul d no t hav e be e n di s m i s s e d as D H S r e qui r e d he r t o t ak e l e av e o r t o e xt e nd her s hi f t to acc ount forthe t i m e she spe nt expre ss i ng br eas t m i l k w hi l e on dut y. 3N o. 08- 40282

Even if th e alle ge d h ara ssingbehavior were c onsi dered, it was no t sufficientlysevere or pe rv a siv e toc re ateah os tilewo rke nviron me nt. See Frank v. Xerox Cor p. , 34 7 F .3d 1 30, 1 3 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). B oth parti es’ appell ate brie fs treat Puente’s di scrimin atio n clai m as beingdismissed 4 vi a su mmary ju dgment. This i s no t th e p r oc ed ur alp os tureof this case. Here, th e di strict co u rtdis mi sse d P u ente ’sdis crim in ationcl aimu n de r Ru le1 2 (b)( 6) fo r failu ret o st ateac laim
. Bec auseth e di strict court di d n ot c onsi der materi als outsi de the plea ding s in rulin g on that mo tion , thisc ourt ’sr evie w u su allyi s c onfi n ed to th e pl ea din g s a n d att a ch me ntsth er et o. See Collins , 224 F.3 d at 498
. However , here the same reaso n that defeats Pu en t e’ s ret ali atio n cl aimo nsu mmaryj u dgme nt als o de fe atsth e di sc ri mi n ationcl aim
. Th u s, si n ceth e outc om e would have b eenth e sa me h ad the distric t co ur tc on s idered th e l atersummary ju dgment materi als, this distinctionis not critical to this case. 6 W e rev i ew de n ov o th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s 12 (b)( 6 ) d i sm i ssa lf or fail u re to state a c l a i m. I

n reK at r i na C analB r e ache s Li t ig. , 4 9 5 F .3d 1 9 1 , 2 0 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). 4 W e accept “ ‘ a ll w e ll -pl ead ed fact s as t rue, vi ew i n g t h em i n t h e l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e p l a i n ti ff
. ’ ” Id
. ( quot i ng Mart i n K
. E by C on st r. C o. v. D all as A rea R a p idTra n sit , 3 6 9 F .3 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )).

“ To sur vi ve a R ul e 1 2(b) ( 6 ) m oti on t o di sm i ss , t he pl ai nt i f f m ustpl ead

‘ en ou gh fa cts to state a cl a i m to rel i ef t h a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.’” Id
. ( quo t i ng Bel lA t l
. Cor

p. , 550 U
. S. at570)
. “ W hi l e a c om pl ai nt at t ac ked by a R ul e 1 2(b) ( 6)
m o t io n to d is m is s d o e s n o t n e e d d e t a il e d fa c t u a l a ll e g a t io n s , a p la in t if f’s obl i gati on t o provi de the ‘ groun ds’ of his ‘ en t i t l e[ m en t ] t o rel i ef ’requi res m ore th a n l a b els an d con cl u sion s[. ]” B e l lAt l
. Cor p. , 55 0 U
. S. a t 5 55 ( i nt e r nalc i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. “ ‘ Fac t uala l l e ga t i o ns m us t be e no ugh t o r ai s e a r i ght t o r e l i e f a bo ve t he speculat i ve l evel , on t h e a ssum pti on tha t a l lthe al l egati on s i n t h e com pl ai n t are tru e ( ev en i f d ou b tf

u li n fa ct)
. ’ ” I

n r e Kat r i na , 495 F
. 3d at205 ( quot i ng B ell A tl. Cor p. , 5 5 0 U .S
. a t 5 5 5 ). Ti t l e VI I pr o hi bi t s a n e m pl o ye r f r o m “ di s c r i m i nat [ i ng] a ga i ns t a ny i n di vi du al w i t h res pect t o . . . com pen sati on , term s, con di t i on s, or pri vi l eges of
e m p lo y m e n t, b e c a u s e o f s u c h in d iv id u a l’ s . . . s e x .” 4 2 U .S .C
. § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (a )( 1 ).N o. 08- 40282

A p ri maf a ci e ca ser equ ir esth e pl ainti ff t o sh owth at: “‘( 1 ) [s h e] i s ame mb ero f a 5 prot ec te d cl a ss; ( 2 ) [s h e] wa s qu alifi edf orh erp os itio n ; (3) [ she ] wa s s ubj ec t toa na dver se employ ment action; and (4)
. . . in the case of disparate treatment, . . . ‘that others similarly situated wer e tr eate d morefavorab ly .’” Okoye v. Un iv. of Tex. Houston HealthSci. Ctr. , 24 5 F.3d 507, 512- 13 (5t h Cir. 2001) (quot ing Shac kel for d v. Deloitte & Touc he, LLP, 19 0 F .3d 3 98, 4 0 4( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9))
. 7 The PD A am e nde d Ti t l e VI I t o i nc l ude di s c r i m i nat i o n ba s e d o n pr e gna nc y and
r e la te d m e d ic a l co n d itio n s : T h e t erm ‘becau se of sex’ or ‘ on t h e basi s of sex’i n cl u de, bu t are not l i m i t e d t o , be c aus e o f o r o n t he ba s i s o f pr e gna nc y, c hi l db i r t h, or r el at ed m edi c alc ondi t i ons ; and w om en af fec t ed bypr egnan c y, c h i l d b i r t h , o r r e l a t e d me d i c a lc o n d i t i o n s s h a l lb e t r e a t e d t h e s a me f o r al l e m pl o ym e nt
- r e l at e d pur po s e s . . . as o t he r pe r s o ns not s o a ffe c te d b u t s im ila r in th e ir a b ility o r in a b ility to w o r k
. 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e (k ). T o an al yze t h e m eri t s of a pl ai n t i f

f ’ s Tit l e V II di scr i m i n ati on cl ai m , w e use t h e fam i l i ar McD on n el lD ougl as fram ew ork , w h i ch f i rst req u i res th e p l a i n ti ff to e s t ab l i s h a pr i m a fac i e c as e o f di s c r i m i nat i o n. See Mc D onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. 5 G ree n , 411 U
. S
. 792 , 8 02 ( 197 3)
. H ow ever, t h e McD on n el lD ougl as f ram ew ork is a n e v id e n ti a r y s ta n d a r d , n o t a rig id p le a d in gre q u ir e m e n t. Sw i e r ki e w i c z v. Sor e m a N. A. , 5 3 4 U
. S. 5 0 6 , 5 0 6

- 0 7 ( 2 0 0 2 )
. Thu s , f o r p ur p o s e s o f s ur v i vi ng a R u l e 12(b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di sm i ss, “ an em pl oym en t di scr i m i n ati on p la inti f f need
n ot p l ea d a p ri m a fa ci e ca se o f d i scrim i n a ti on . ” I d. at 5 1 1 ; s e e als o Jo hnson v
. Joh n son , 3 85 F. 3d 5 03 , 5 31 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 004 )
. S t i l l , t hi s c o ur t m ayc o ns i de r t he McD o n n el lD ougl as f r am e w o r k, a nd n o pl ai nt i f f i s e xe m ptf

r o m he r o bl i ga t i on to “ a l l eg e facts su ff

i ci en t t o sta te allthe elem en ts of he r cl a i m . ” Mi t c he l lv. C r e s c e n t R iv e rPo r t P il o ts A s s ’n , 2 65 F
. A pp’ x 36 3, 370 ( 5t h C i r . 200 8) ( quo t i ng Jo r dan v . Al t e r nat i v e Res
. Cor p. , 4 5 8 F .3 d 3 3 2 , 3 4 6 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 )). Pu e n t e ’ s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d i n r e l e v a n t p a r t t h e f o l l o wi n g : ( 1 ) a l lBP As
r ec ei v e t wo t wen t y - m i nu t e b r e a ks a nd o ne t hi r t y - m i nu t e l un c h p e r i o d ; ( 2) sup ervi sors cl osel y m on i t ored her break s af t er s h e st art ed u si n g t h em t o expressN o. 08- 40282

8 br e as t m i l k, a l lt he w hi l e i gno r i ng “ t he b r e ak s t ak e n b y t he m al e BPA a nd t he B PA w ho s m oked t obac c o” ; ( 3) P uent e a ske d D H S t o a l l ow her“ t w o t hi r t ym i n u t e peri od s” d u rin g w h i ch she cou l d “express breast m i l k w h i l e on d u ty . . . w ith o u t h a v in gto ta k e h e r le a v e (s )”; a n d (4 ) D H S “a g r e e [ d ] to p e r m it [ Puen t e ] t o t ak e t w o t hi r t y[

- ] m i nut e b r e ak s t o e xp r e s s b r e as t m i l k, b ut requ i r[ ed] t h at s h e ei t h er use l eave, t ak e l eave w i t h ou t pa y, or extend h er w ork d a y to m a k e u p th e tim e .” E qu al l y as im portant as w h at Pu en t e d id al l ege i n her c om pl ai nt i s w hat P u en t e d idn o t al l ege i n her com pl ai n t . Pu en t e di d n ot al l ege th a t D H S t ook away t he t w o t w e nt y- m i nut e br e ak s o r t he o ne t hi r t y- m i nut e l unc h pe r i o d s he and eve r y ot her B PA r ec ei ved; she di d not al l ege t hat her r eques t f ort w o t hi r t ym i nute p eriod s m er el y am ount ed t o r eal l oc at i ng t he s eve nt y m i nute s of br eak t i m e al ready gi ven t o her; an d sh e di d n ot al l ege t h at D H S expressl y proh i bi t ed h er from ex p ress i n g b r e a s t m i l k du ri n g h er se ve n ty m i n u tes. In su m , P u en te di d n ot a l l ege t h e fact s that, i f t rue, w ere w el lw i t h i n her kn ow l edg e an d w h i ch sh e sh ou l d h a ve s h ou ted from th e cou rth ou se ro oftop
. “[W ]he n a co m p l a i n t om i ts facts tha t, i f th ey ex i sted , w ou l d cl ea rl y d om i n a te the ca s e, i t seem s fa i r to a ssu m e th a t t h ose fa cts do n ot ex i st. ” O ’ B rie n v. D iG ra zia , 5 4 4 F .2 d 5 4 3 , 5 4 6 n .3 (1 st C ir. 1 9 7 6 ). A t bott om , P u en t e asked f or a benefi t d iffe ren t f rom t h at w h i ch every ot h er B P A rec ei ved
. W h i l e she w as al l eged l y den i ed that benefi t , she n ever a l l eg es th a t s h e rec eived l ess tha n the statu s qu o a s a re su l t of h er re q u est. Ass um i ng w i t ho ut de c i di ng t hatPue nt e w o ul d fal lw i t hi n t he c l as s o f pe r s o ns protec t ed by t h e P D A , “ t h e P D A does not i m pose an af f i rm ati ve obl i gati on on em p l oy ers to g ra n t pre feren ti a ltreatm en t . . . . ” Urban o v. C on t ’lA i rl i n es, I n c. , 138 F
. 3d 204, 207 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ( c i t i ng C al. F ed. S av. & L oan A ss’ n v. G u err a , 479 U
. S
. 272 , 284

- 86 ( 198 7) )
. A ccor di n gl y, al bei t f or di f ferent r eason s, w e agree w it h t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o di sm i ss P u en t e’ s Tit l e V II di scr i m i n ati onN o. 08- 40282

9 c la im p u r s u a n t t o R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ). S ee C u vi l l i er v. T aylor , 50 3 F
. 3 d 3 9 7 , 40 1 ( 5 th C i r. 200 7) ( “ [ T h i s c ou rt ] m ay aff i rm a di st ri ctcourt ’ s R u l e 12(b) ( 6) di sm i ssalon a n y g ro u n d s r a ise d b e low a n d su p p o rte d b y th e re co rd .”)
. C . P u e n te ’ s R e ta lia tio n C la im F in a ll y , P u e n t e c h a l le n g e s th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s g r a n t o f t h e S e c r e t a r y ’s
m ot i on f

or s u m m a ry ju d gm en t as t o her ret al i ati on cl ai m . Th e di st ri ctcourt h el d that t h e Secret ary assert ed a l egi t i m ate, non - di scri m i n ator y reason f or D H S ’ s act i on s and t h at Pu en t e fai l ed to dem on st rat e t h at t h e Secret ary’ s r eason w as m erel y pretext u al
. O n app eal , P u en t e argu es t h at s h e eng aged i n prot ect ed uni on ac t i vi t y and t hat D H S un l aw f ul l y r et al i at ed agai nsth erf our days l at erby
s e ndi ng he r a w r i t t e n m e m o r and um da t e d Apr i l1 7, 200 0, r e qui r i ng t hats he
e i t he r t ak e unp ai d l e av e or e xt e nd h e r s hi f t t o a c c o unt f

o r a ny t i m e s he s pe nt e x p r e s s in gb r e a s t m ilk w h ile o n d u ty . Thi s c o ur t r e vi e w s a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s o r de r gr ant i ng s um m ar y j udg m e nt de
n ov o, a p p l yin g th e sa m e sta n d a rd as th e d i stri ct cou rt. A ryain v. W a l

- Mart St o r e s Te x . LP , 5 3 4 F .3 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 8 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). S u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is ap pr o pr i at e w he n “ t he r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue as t o any m at e r i alfac t a nd .
. . t he
m ov a n t i s en ti tl ed t o ju d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c)
. “A gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact exi st s i f t h e sum m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce i s s u ch th a t a rea son a b l e j u ry cou l d retu rn a ve rd i ct for th e n on -m ov a n t. ” A ry a in , 534 F .3 d a t 4 7 8
. “[A ]ll fa c ts a n d e v id e n c e m u s t b e t a k e n in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to the n on -m ov a n t. ” L e Ma ir e v . L a . D e p t. of Tr a n s

p . & D e v ., 480 F. 3d 383, 387 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). In r e v ie w in gt h e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t e v id e n c e , w e m u s t “ r e fr a in from m a k i n g c r e d ib il i ty d eterm i n a ti on s or w eigh i n g th e ev i d en ce.” Turne rv. B aylorR i cha rdson Med. C t r. , 4 7 6 F .3d 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). The m o va nt be ar s t he i ni t i al bur de n o f de m o ns t r at i ng t h at no g e nui ne is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t e x is ts . C elo texCo rp . v . C a tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S
. 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 (19 8 6 ). I f t he m o va nt do e s no tm e e t t hi s b ur de n, s um m ar y j udg m e nt m us t b e de ni e d.N o. 08- 40282

10 Jo hn v
. Lo ui s i ana , 75 7 F
. 2 d 69 8 , 70 8 (5th C i r. 1 9 8 5 ). B u t i f th e m ov a n t m ee ts t h i s bu rden , the n on m ovan t “ m u st[ t h en ] i den t i f y speci f i c evi den ce i n t h e rec ord
a n d a rticu la te th e m a n n e r in w h ich th a t ev id e n ce s u p p o rts th a t p a rty ’ s c la im [. ]” Jo hns o n v . D e e

p E. Te x . Reg ’lNar c o t i c s Tr af f i c ki ng Tas k For ce , 3 7 9 F
. 3d 293, 3 0 1 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). “[S ]u c h e v id e n c e m u s t b e s u ffic ie n t t o s u s ta in a fin d in gin fav o r o f t he no nm o va nt o n a l li s s ue s a s t o w hi c h t he no nm o va nt w o ul d be art he b u rd en of p roo f a t t ri a l
. ” Id
. Li ke di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m s , w e a nal yz e r e t al i at i o n c l ai m s us i ng t he McD on n el lD ougl as fr a m e w o r k
. McC oy v. C i ty of S h reve port , 492 F. 3d 551, 556 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h u s, to su rv ive a m o tion for su m m a ry j u d g m e n t, th e p la in tiff
m ustm ake a pri m a f aci e c as e o f

r e t al i at i o n, w hi c h r e qui r e s s ho w i ng t hat : ( 1) t he pl ai nt i f f e nga ge d i n a c t i vi t y pr o t e c t e d b y Ti t l e VI I , ( 2) an a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nt ac t i o n oc c ur r e d, and ( 3) a ca us all i nk e xi s t e d b e t w e e n t he pr o t e c t e d a c t i vi t y and th e a d v e r s e a c tio n . G e e v . Pr i nc i pi , 2 89 F. 3d 3 42 , 3 45 ( 5th C i r. 2 002)
. I n t he reta l i a ti on con tex t, an ad ve rse e m p l oy m en t acti on i s on e th a t “ a rea s o n a b le
em pl oye e w oul d have f ound .
. . [ t o b e] m at er i al l y adve r se , w hi c h i n t hi s c ont ext
m ean s i t w el lm igh t h a v e di ssuad ed a reason able w orker f rom m ak i n g or su p p orting a ch a rg e of discri m i n a ti on . ” B url i ngt on N
. & San t a Fe Ry. C o. v. W h ite , 548 U
. S. 53, 68 ( 2006)
. In m ovi n g f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , t h e S e cr e tary m et hi s burd en of dem on st rat i n g t h at n o g en u i n e is sue of m ater i al factexi st ed as to an el em en t of P u en t e’ s r et al i ati on cl ai m , na m el y, w h et h er Pu en t e suf fered an adv erse em pl oym en t act i on . Th e Secret ary att ach ed to h i s m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t severalaf

f i da vi t s f rom t h e vari ou s s u peri or patr olagen t s w h o ha n dl ed Puen t e ’ s r e que s t . Eac h a f f i da vi t a ve r s t hatPue nt e w as ne ve r de ni e d t he
o ppo r t uni t y t o e xp r e s s b r e as t m i l k d ur i ng t he t w o t w e nt y- m i nut e b r e ak s a nd t he
o ne t hi r t y- m i nut e l unc h pe r i o d a l l o t t e d t o e ve r y B P A
. Ac c o r di ng t o t he af f i da vi t s , Puen t e w ant e d br e ak t i m e f o r e xp r e s s i ng br e as t m i l k in a d d ition toN o. 08- 40282

Therewas c onfu sionatoral argument as towhether the administrative re cord, which 6 all egedly include s this memoran dum, was part of the summary -ju dgment evidenc e a ndth e recor d onapp ealto this court. Tobecl ear, it is part o f ne ithe r. On J anu ary27 , 20 06, Pu ente move d for leaveto filea vo luminou s reco r d , p r es um ably the administrative re cord, as an addi t io na l supplement toh er r esponse . The distric t co urt granted Pu entele ave to conventionally(as opposed to e lectronically) fileth e volu m ino u sdo cu m e nt, b ut expresslyn oted that its orde r was “notintende d to be an ackno wledg ment tha ts uchdoc ument was timely file d,” a nd that “[t]oth e co ntrary, thesedocument s w ere not timely file d.” Th e di strict court never rul ed th at the administrative re cord was to beco me part o f th e o fficial su mmary ju dgment re cord. C onsequent ly , ith as not b eenmadepart of the recor d onapp ealto this court, a nd we willn ot c onsi der it or any of i t s a ll eg ed c onte nts. We also noteth at it was App ellant’ s burd ento c om pileth e re co rdonapp eal, United States v. Cove ney , 99 5 F .2d 5 78, 587(5th Cir. 1 993), an d to be abl e to cite to this court ex actly where the administrative re cord isl oc ate d inth e re co rdo napp eal. See F ED . R. APP . P. 28(e). Appell antfulfill ed n either of theseduties, and the resulting ab senceof the admi ni s t rativerec ord befo re this court i s the conse que nce. In sum, because the administrative recor d has not bee n made part of th e re cord on appeal to this court and was no t co nside red by th e di strict court, we will not consi der it or a nyo f it s all egedc onte nts . 11 t h e seventy m i n u t es of break ti m e she al ready rec eived
. B ecau se s h e w an t ed ad di t i on al break ti m e, D H S t h ou gh t i t onl y fai r to requ i re P u en t e t o accoun t f or th e a d d itio n a l b r e a k tim e b y ta k in gle a v e o r e x te n d in gh e r s h ift. Se e Ur b a no , 138 F. 3d at207 ( c i t i ng G u err a , 479 U
. S
. at 284- 86) ( “ [ T ] h e P D A does not i m pose a n a ffi rm a tiv e ob li g a tion on em p loy e rs to g ra n t p re fer e n tia l tre a tm e n t . . . . ”). Bec aus e t he Se c r e t ar y s at i s f i e d hi s s um m ar y- j udg m e nt b urd e n, t he b u rd en sh i ft ed to P u en te to m a k e a p ri m a facie sh ow i n g o f reta l i a ti on . P u en te h as of fered neit h er an exp l an ati on nor speci f i c evi den ce r ef

u t i n g t h e asser tion t h at t h e D H S onl y ref u sed t o gi ve P u en t e preferenti al t reat m en t i n t h e f orm of
m ore pa i d b rea k ti m e th a n ev ery oth er B P A
. T h e on l y “ev i d en ce” P u en te p oin ts t o i n an att em pt t o show t h at s h e w as p ro h ib ited f rom bei n g able t o express b r e a s t m ilk d u r in gth e s e v e n ty m in u te s o f b r e a k tim e a lr e a d y a llo tt e d to h e r is
a w ri t t en m e m o ran du m f rom t h e D H S del i vered to h er f ou r days af

t er her
m e e t i ng w i t h m ana ge m e nt o n Apr i l1 3t h. Thi s m e m o r and um w as no t pa r t o f t he
sum m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce and i s now h e re to be f ou n d i n t h e rec ord on ap pea l
. Look i n g at Pu en t e’ s s u m m ary- j u dg m e nte vi de nc e t hatt h e di st ri ctcourt

6N o. 08- 40282

Pursuant to LocalRule s 7.3 a nd7
. 4 of th e United State s Distric t C ourtfor the 7 Sout hern D ist ric t of Texas , Puente ’s f irs t res pons e s houldhavebe en file d w ithi n tw enty days of th e Se cretary’ s motio n; howeve r, Puente filed her respon se twent y- f ive days after the S e c r e t ary’ sm o ti o nw a sf ile d. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 6 (a) (e xpl ainin gh owt o co mp u te“ a nytim e perio d specified in theserules, o r in anylo cal rul e, co urt order, or statute”). Pu en t e’s supple mental r es p onse was al so filed late . Accordingto the distric t co urt’s docket sheet , Pu enteh ad at most four weeks from October20 , 20 05 to file a supplement toh er r esponse ; she did not file the supple ment to h er r esponseu ntilNovembe r3 0, 2 00 5. Notwith standing Pu ente ’s tardin ess, th e di strict court had discretion to consi der Pu ente ’s re sponses in deciding wh eth ert o grant th e Se cr et ary’smo tionf orsu mmaryj u dgme nt. See S. D. T ex . L oc al Ru le7 .8 (“Th e [c]o u rtmayi nitsdis cr etio n , onitsmo tiono r u po napp lication. . . shorte n or exte n d ti me pe riod s, a n d re qu es t orp er mit a dditio n al au th orityo r su pp ortin gmate ri al. ”)
. The info rmatio n in t hi s undate d, unnotariz ed do cument was never discussed by 8 Pu enteinth e di strict court oronapp eal . S imilarly , th e di strict court di d n ot me ntion the statement. Thus, Puente has fail ed to establi sh that thedistrict courtexerci sed its discre tion to c onsi der this late -file d stat ement . Furth er, the docume nt lacks notariz ation and a date. C f. 28U.S.C . §1 746(allowin g attestationw itho ut a notary, but requirin g a date). Thus, it i s not compete nt summaryj udgment evidence. Finally , eveni f i twere compete nt summary ju dgment evidence timelybe fore the cou rt, Puente c annot c omplain of th e di strict court’s fai lureto cons ide r it bec aus e she f ailedt od i s c u s s it s con tent s in her re sp ons e or brie fing. P u ente“h a d th e b u rd eno f pr es entin gevid encesuff icie nt tod em on strateth e exis te n ceo f a materi al fact issue
. . . [and was] requir ed toide ntif y s pecific evidence in the recor d, an d to articul ate the ‘preci se manner’in which the evidence supported [her] clai m.” Forsyt h v. Barr , 19 F. 3d 1527, 153 7 ( 5th Cir. 1994) (qu oti ng Topalianv. Ehrman , 954 F.2 d 112 5, 113 1 (5thC ir. 199 2)) . “‘Rule 56 does not i mpose upon a di strict court aduty to sift through the recor d in searchof evidence t o su pport a party’s opposition to su mmary ju dgment.’” Id
. (quot ing Skotak v. Ten necoResins, In c. , 9 5 3F .2 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 5&n .7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 ))
. The sente nce tha t mighthave given s pec ifi cs – “I wo uld lik e to have the annualleave 9 that Iwas r equired to t ake restored, con sistin g of

___ hours” – remains blank, withn o numbe r fill edi n . 12 m ay h ave con si dered, on l y P u en t e’ s ow n un da t ed, un n ot ari zed st atem en t f rom 7 8 t he EE O C i nve s t i ga t i o n a t t ac he d t o herunt i m e l y s upp l e m e nt alre s po ns e t o t he
sum m ary j u dg m en t m ot i on st ated t h at s h e “ l ostb ot h b reaks an d l u n ch. ” E ven i f t hi s s t at e m e n t w ere c o m pe t e nt s um m ar y j udg m e nt e vi de nc e , t hi s v ag ue r e s po ns e fal l s fars ho r t o f di r e c t l y r e f

ut i ng t h e a f

f i da vi t s a t t ac he d t o t he S ecre tary ’ s m oti on f

or su m m a ry j u d gm en t. T h u s, as th e rec ord stan d s, P u en te 9
n ei t h er l ostbreak ti m e nor w as restr i ct ed i n h ow she coul d u se her break ti m e; t hi s r ec or d m er el y r ef l ec t s ac c om m odat i on t em per ed byno pr ef er ent i alN o. 08- 40282

13 trea tm en t, w h i ch i s i n su ff i ci en t t o ra i se a ge n u in e is s u e of m a terialfa ct as to P u e n t e ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. B ecau se Pu en t e cann ot m ak e a pri m a faci e case of ret al i ati on , w e need not conti n u e past t h e f

i rstst ep of

t h e McD on n el lD ougl as fr a m e w o r k in o u r a n a ly s is
o f th is ca s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r r b y g r a n tin gs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. I I I . Con cl usi on W e co n c lu d e th a t d e n o v o re v ie w o f P u e n te ’ s cla im s is a p p r o p r ia te . W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.