1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3920

___________ Jamesetta Battle, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Federal Express Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 2005 Filed: December 12, 2005

___________ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jamesetta Battle appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against her former employer, Federal Express Corpor ation (Fed Ex). We affirm.
Initially, we agree with the district c ourt that Ms. Battle filed her judicial complaint more than 90 days after receivi ng her right-to-sue notice, and hence, her Title VII claims are time-barred. See Maegdlin v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists &-2- Aerospace Workers , 309 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (plaintiff must file Title VII complaint within 90 days af ter receipt of right-to-sue letter); Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown , 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1 (1984) (per curiam) (presumption exists that clai mant received right-to-sue noti ce 3 days after its mailing).

The district court also correctly conc luded that several of the incidents underlying Ms. Battle’s discri mination and retaliation cl aims were not adverse employment actions, and thus could notsupport a section 1981 claim. See Davis v. KARK-TV, Inc. , 421 F.3d 699, 703-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (prima facie case of discrimination under § 1981 requi res adverse employment action); Kim v. Nash Finch Co. , 123 F.3d 1046, 1060 (8th Cir. 1997) (adverse employment action is element of retaliation claim under § 1981). These inci dents included poten tial relocation, a temporary termination that was rescinded, and refusal to recertify her on a particular truck type. See Hoffman v. Rubin , 193 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 1999) (adverse employment action occurs when employee suffers loss with respect to term, condition, or privilege of employment).
Ms. Battle’s poor reviews and her excl usion from the management training program may have constituted adverse empl oyment actions, but the record contains no evidence from which to infer that r acial discrimination motivated these poor reviews, or that similarly situated white employees were more favorably treated. See Philip v. Ford Motor Co. , 413 F.3d 766, 768 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, Ms. Battle failed to establish the requisite causal connection between these events and any protected activity for purposes of her retaliation claim. SeeSmith v. Riceland Foods, Inc. , 151 F.3d 813, 819 (8th Cir. 1998) (third el ement of prima facie case of retaliation is causal connection between adverse empl oyment action and protected activity).

Ms. Battle also failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure-to-promote, because she did not provide any information about the-3- qualifications for the 1998 promotion th at she sought, whether she met those qualifications or whether a similarly situat ed white person, received the job instead. See Younts v. Fremont County , 370 F.3d 748, 754-55 (8th Cir. 2004). Ms. Battle’s claim that she was denied promotions afte r September 1999 fails as well, because the record contains no evidence that she app lied, or was otherwis e eligible, for any promotion during that time. With respect to the claim that Fed Ex discriminatorily denied Ms. Battle extra working hours, Fe d Ex offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Ms. Battle did not rebut with any evidence. SeeRuby v. Springfield R-12 Pub. Sch. Dist. , 76 F.3d 909, 911-12 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming grant of summary judgment where plaintiff failed to offer evidence to rebut employer’s non-discriminatory reasons for its actions).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________