# U n i ted S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-7085 September Term, 2021 1: 18-c v -015 98-RC Filed O n: June 1, 202 2 T onia Ingram ,

App ellant
v . District of

Colum bia Ch ild an d Fa mily Services Agency,

App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Kat sas, Ra o, a nd W alker, Circuit Ju dges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l w as co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing, th e m otion for app ointm entof

cou nsel, and the m otion for lea v e to f ile sup plem ent al ap pen dix, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion for ap poin tm entof cou nsel b e d enie d. In civil cases, app ellant s are noten titled to a ppo intm entof cou nsel when the y

ha v e n ot d em onst rated suf f icient likeliho od of

succe ss on the m erits. I t is FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e m otion for lea v e to f ile sup plem ent al ap pen dix be grant ed. T he Clerk is directed to f ile the lodged sup plem ent al ap pen dix. It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s Ju ly 30 , 20 21 orde r be af

f irmed . W ith resp ect t o a ppe llant’s ret aliation claim , th e d istrict court correctly conclude d th at a ppe llant re lied o nly on te mp oral p rox imity between her a lleged prote cted activities and the term inatio n o f he r em ploymen t, a nd tha t th is was insu f f icient to re butap pellee ’s prof fered legitimat e, n onre taliato ry reaso n for f iring he r. Se e, e .g., W ood ruf f v. Pete rs, 48 2 F.3 d 5 21, 53 0 (D.C. Cir. 20 07). W ith resp ect t o a ppe llant’s claims of disab ility

discrimina tion, the district co urt co rrectly con clude d th at a ppe llant, w ho was rep resen ted by coun sel atthe tim e, cite d n o e v iden ce f rom w hich a reaso nab le jury could f ind t hatap pellee ’s prof fered reaso n for f iring he r was p retext. See Ad eyemi v. District of Colum bia, 525 F.3d 12 22, 12 26 (D.C. Cir. 2008 ). T o th e

# U n i ted S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-7085 September Term, 2021
extent t hatap pellan t no w argues t hatcerta in ad dition al evidence in th e reco rd would allow a jury

to infer th at a ppe llee’s pro f fered reaso n for f iring he r was p retext, he r coun sel did no t raise this a rg um entin d istrict court. Conse quently, the argume nt is forfeited . S ee Sala z ar ex rel. Sa lazar v . District of Colum bia, 602 F.3d 43 1, 4 36– 37 (D.C. Cir. 2010 ); see also Link v. W aba sh R.R. Co ., 3 70 U.S. 6 26, 63 3–3 4 (19 62) (obse rv ing thata “p arty is deem ed bou nd by the a cts of his lawyer-agent”). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

Page 2