### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-30238 Summary Calendar

ISAAC JORDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant

v. CLECO CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:11-CV-1701

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Isaac Jordan c halleng es the district court’s grant of s ummary judgment to his employer Cleco o n claims of failure to p romote, discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in v iolation of 42 U. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 1

. Finding no reason to alter the sound reasoning of the district court, we AFFIRM. We review g r ants o f summary judgm e n t de n ovo , applying the same standard as the district court. K e m p v . H older , 610 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2013No. 13-30238

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F E D
. R. C I V
. P

. 56. “‘[C]onclusory allegations, speculation, and u nsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy’ the nonmovan t’s burden [ on] summary judgment.” Ramsey v . Henderson , 286 F.3d 2 64, 269 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996)). Appellant f

irst contests the district court’s ruling on a failure to promote

c l a i m . Jordan alleges he was not selected in 2006 (three years before he f i l e d this suit) for a promotion from Fuel Handler to a Supervisor-Field Maintenance position because of his race. 1 This claim f ails f o r m u l t iple reasons. The prescription period he r e u n d e r § 1 9 81 is one year, Taylor v. B unge Corp. , 775 F.2d 6 17, 6 18 (5th Cir. 1 985), and Jordan o ffered the d i s t r i c t c o u r t only conclusory statements for an extension t o f o u r y ears under t he 1991 A m e n d ments. See generally Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons C o. , 5 41 U .S. 369, 124 S. Ct. 1 836 (2004). The same e rror is r epeated on appeal. M o reover, under the burden-shifting s cheme set forth in M cDonnell Douglas , Appellant failed to show pretext after Cleco produced a non-discriminatory b as i s for its hiring decision. See Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit , 383 F.3d 309, 3 16–17 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing M

c D o n n e l l D ouglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 7 92, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973)). Jordan next challenges adverse rulings on his r a cial d i s c r imination and retaliation c l a i m s . The district court held the discrimination claim—based on
a lack of trainin g/opportunity provided—both p r escribed and without merit. B e cause prescription was not challenged on appeal, that claim is w aived. The district court also rejected the related claim of retaliation due to a lack of evidence. To state a retaliation case, a plaintiff must demonstrate he engaged in a p rotected activity a nd suffered an adv e r s e employment action as a result.

1 Jord an als o m ak es a brief s tatem ent concerning not being p rom oted in 2002 f rom Fuel H and ler to Senior Fuel H and ler. The dis trict court treated this claim as p res cribed and that hold ing is not ap p ealed here. The Senior Fuel H and ler argum ent is w aived

. 2 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2013No. 13-30238

McCoy v. City of Shreveport , 492 F.3d 551, 556–57 (5th Cir. 2007). Jordan argues th e l a c k of training constituted an adverse employment action, but his appellate brief does not indicate the protected activity for which h e claims retaliation. His deposition testimony indicates the activity was t he filing of his lawsuit. B e c a use the alleged adverse employment action—lack of training—occurred prior to the protected activity—filing of the lawsuit—there is no evidence of a materially adverse e mployment consequence, and the retaliation claim fails. Appellant’s final a rgument is that he was subjected t o a hostile work environment. To s ucceed on this contention, a plaintiff m u s t s h o w ( 1 ) he is a member of a protected group; (2) w as subjected t o unwelcome h arassment; (3) based on race; ( 4) t hat was so severe as to affect his employment; and (5) the employer knew/should have known about t h e h a r a ssment and failed to take prompt remedial a ction. Ramsey v. Henderson , 286 F.3d 2 64, 268 ( 5 t h Cir. 2002). Ap p e l l a n t correctly notes that a n on-going violation may extend the limitation window for considering evide n c e c oncerning the hostile work environment. J ordan fails, however , t o link the past activities with a present violation against him and does not account for the affirmative actions taken by Cleco to correct alleged violations. Anecdotal evidence of coarse racial jokes and generally inappropriate behavior is offered, but the district court correctly held that the isolated i ncidents failed t o show an effect on h is employment. See Faragher v . C ity of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2 283 (1998). While certain i n c i d e n ts could have given rise to a claim, t he only interference with work performance mentione d o n a ppeal is the d e nial of opportunity for advanc e m e n t

. This argument m erely seeks to revive the previous claim and there is no indication that it a ffected J ordan in the p e rformance of h is duties. Appellant c a n n o t , t herefore, make out a successful claim for a hostile work environment. See EEOC v. WC&M Enters. , 496 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2007).

3 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/16/2013No. 13-30238

In sum, Appellant o f f ers this court little more than untimely and conclusory allegations unable to survive summary judgment. The j udgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.

4 Case: 13-30238 Document: 00512409234 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/16/2013