# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 30555

Annie J. Daniel,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus

Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College,

Defendant

— Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:21

- CV

- 81

Before Stewart, Clement, and Elro d, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Dr. Annie J. Daniel filed this employment discrimination lawsuit in
Louisiana state court against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“LSU”) . Dr. Daniel , who is African American, alleges that she experienced unlawful racism while

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 8, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

2 working at LSU’s School of Veterinary Medicine (“LSU SVM ”)

. Allegedly,
Dr. Daniel’s superiors violated feder al and Louisiana laws by subjecting her

to racial discrimination , a hostile work environment , and retaliation . LSU
removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, which

t he district court granted. Dr. Daniel timely appealed.
For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court.

I. Facts & Procedural History
On January 1, 2014, Dr. Daniel started working for LSU SVM as a

c linical t rack Associate Professor of Veterinary Medical Education and the Director of Veterinary Instructional Design

. She was responsible for collecting data to ensure that LSU SVM ’s curriculum was effective and for working with the faculty to develop sound pedag og ical methods

. Previously,
Dr. Daniel had occupied similar roles at De s Moines University and Tulane University School of Medicine. Dr. Daniel has a Ph.D. in Education, but she is not trained in veterinary science and had never worked at a v eterinary

s chool before her appointment at LSU SVM

. Dr. Daniel’s supervisor at LSU SVM was Dr. Joseph Taboada, a white
man who was then the Associate Dean for Student and Academic Affairs.
Dr. Taboada was Dr. Daniel’s first point of contact at LSU SVM

. He called
Dr. Daniel once she applied and invited her to campus for a visit

. Dr. Daniel went through a series of interviews on campus , including with Dr. Taboada

. She also presented to the faculty on diversity and inclusion. After her campus visit, Dr. Tab oada orally extended her an employment offer, which was later formalized in writing.
Dr. Daniel alleges that she faced racial discrimination at LSU SVM , mostly at the hands of Dr. Taboada. First, she says that within a week of starting her job, Dr. Tabo a da admitted that he “didn’t know [she was] Black because [she] didn’t sound Black on the phone.” Dr. Daniel “just kind of Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

3 ignored” this comment but mentally noted that Dr. Taboada “wanted a [w] hite woman” and “did not want a Black woman to work with him.”

Ne xt, Dr. Daniel alleges that Dr. Taboada made disparaging remarks about African Americans in her presence. Dr. Taboada generally made these comments during conversations with Dr. Daniel about the lack of racial diversity at LSU SVM

. The two frequently discu ssed African American students and diversity at LSU SVM because they both believed that diversifying the profession was important. W ithin a few months of Dr. Daniel starting her job , Dr. Taboada told her that African Americans “don’t do
well” at LSU SVM af

ter she asked why so few had matriculated into the program. He added that “Black [parents] don’t expect their kids to go to college .

. . [b]ecause they don’t go to college themselves.” Dr. Daniel responded by explaining that although her parents did not attend college, they pushed her to pursue higher education.

Dr. Daniel compiled a list of similar remarks that Dr. Taboada allegedly made throughout 2014 and 2015. Those remarks included that (1) gifted Black students typically applied to medical school, not veterinary school; (2) most “Black students just cannot keep up with the pace and content” of veterinary school; (3) students from Southern Unive rsity, the local historically black university, were “not academically strong enough” to attend LSU SVM because Southern University ’s animal science program

wa s “weak”; and (4) LSU SVM did not want to “ burden ” Black students

“ down with student loans.” Dr. Daniel considered these and other remarks
racist

. Additionally, Dr. Daniel asserts that LSU effectively demoted her by relegating her to clerical work and by taking away her core duties

. Allegedly,
Dr. Taboada forced her to perform “clerical duties, inputting data, and providing advice

— all because she is [B] lack and Dr. Taboada did not want to Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

4 take directives from a [B] lack woman.” During a 2017 meeting , Dr. Taboada suggested that Dr. Daniel could “copy and paste” faculty lecture sch edules into a single document for the Courses and Curriculum Committee to review.
Dr. Daniel perceived this as a statement that clerical work was best suited for “the only Black woman in the room.” Dr. Daniel also alleges that , in 2018,
her duties were rea ssigned to a white woman, Dr. Heidi Banse, despite
Dr. Banse having no training in curriculum design. A ccording to Dr. Daniel, LSU “took the Instructional Design” component of her position and gave it
to Dr. Banse. Dr. Daniel further testified that Dr. Ban se and Dr. Taboada
instituted a “ T eaching A cademy” for the faculty despite knowing that she was developing a similar program.

Dr. Daniel also alleges that LSU excluded her from training opportunities, declined her requests for staff support, and moved her offi ce into a “closet

. ” On one occasion, Dr. Taboada “sent a group of people to
learn about clinical skills” but excluded Dr. Daniel. T he individuals sent to that event were all faculty veterinarians. Sometime during her tenure at
LSU SVM , Dr. Daniel requested to move to an office outside of student
affairs because she could not concentrate there. Dr. Daniel then moved to another office that she says w as too small. Throughout her time at
LSU SVM , Dr. Daniel requested additional staff support, but administrators denied her requests because the school allegedly lacked the resources to hire
additional staff.
Dr. Daniel reported her experience s to administr ators several times throughout her tenure at LSU SVM

. In May 2017, she discussed her

concerns about her relationship with Dr. Taboada and his alleged racist
remarks with an LSU Human Resources official, Gaston Reinoso. In response, R einoso asked Dr. Taboada about Dr. Daniel’s allegations and told
him that, to the extent that he was making racist remarks, he “ needed to stop
immedia t ely .” Reinoso also advised Dr. Taboada and Dr. Joel Baines, the Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

5 Dean of LSU SVM , that they could not retaliate against Dr. Daniel for her allegations. In February 2018 , Dr. Daniel reported her concerns about the
harassment and discrimination she experienced to the Senior Vice P rovost at LSU

. On June 4, 2018, Dr. Daniel complained to Reinoso that Dr. Banse and
Dr. T aboada were taking over the T eaching A cademy

. On February 29, 2019,
Dr. Daniel communicated to Dr. Baines her anxiety about working with
Dr. Taboada. On April 12, 2019, Dr. Daniel filed an EEOC charge alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

LSU allegedly retaliated against Dr. Daniel for repeatedly reporting
what she considered racial discrimination. The retaliatory actions that she identifies include the alleged transfer of her jo b duties to Dr. Banse , further alleged racist remark s , and two negative performance evaluations. As to the
remark s , in August 2019, Dr. Baines allegedly told Dr. Daniel that African
American students needed to “prove themselves” to win admission to LSU
SVM

. She also says that Dr. Taboada made racist remarks throughout 2019 and 2020, including that African Americans are “advised to go to medical school as opposed to veterinary school.”
Regarding the evaluations, in 2018, the LSU SVM faculty voted

seven

- to

- one against reappointing Dr. Daniel, apparently because the faculty “d[id] not understand her role.” Even so, Dr. Daniel was reappointed and received a rating of “satisfactory” for the year in June 2019

. Dr. Daniel
considers that ev aluation discriminatory , however, because she believes it falsely describes her as “inflexible , ” which was “almost like” calling her an “angry Black woman.” On June 4, 2020, Dr. Daniel received a performance rating of “ n eeds i mprovement” from Dr. Baines fo r both 2019 and 2020.
Dr. Daniel disagreed with that assessment. In January 2020, Dr. Daniel sued LSU in Louisiana court alleging
violations of federal and Louisiana civil rights laws. She brought Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

6 discrimination , harassment , and retaliation claims under Title s VI and V I I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 d , et seq

. , and 2000 e , et seq

. , respectively. She also brought claims for violations of Louisiana ’s anti

discrimination statute , La. R.S. § 23:301 , et seq. , and a reprisal cl aim under
Louisiana ’s w histleblower statute , Id. § 23:967. LSU removed the case to
federal court. After discovery closed, LSU moved for summary judgment. The district court granted LSU’s motion and entered final judgment.
Dr. Daniel timely appealed.

II. Standard of Review

This court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same st andard as the district court. Moss v. BMC Software, Inc. , 610 F.3d 917, 922 (5th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate only
when “ the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a ma tter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P . 56(a). “A party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.”
Lamb v. Ashford Place Apartments L.L.C. , 914 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation om itted). T he court must “view[] all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party.” Moss , 610 F.3d at 922

.
III . Discussion
On appeal, Dr. Daniel argues that the district court erroneously (1) failed to consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating her
hostile work environment claim s ; (2) held that she proved neither direct evidence of discrimination nor an adverse employment action for purposes of her discrimination claims; (3) applied the wrong standard to her reta liation Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

7 claim; and (4) dismissed her reprisal claim under Louisiana’s whistleblower

statute . We address each argument in turn. 1

A. Hostile Work Environment

To establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII , the plaintiff must show that she (1) belongs to “a protected class”; (2) faced

“ unwelcome harassment”; (3) the harassment was “based on [her] status as a member of a protected class”; (4) the harassment was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment and cre ate an abusive working environment”; and (5) “the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial
action.” Abbt v. City of Houston , No. 21

- 20085, 28 F.4th 601 , 2022 WL 764999, at *4 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 202 2) (quoting Hernandez v. Yellow Transp.,
Inc. , 670 F.3d 644, 651 (5th Cir. 2012)). When assessing whether conduct
satisfie s the fourth element, this court considers “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee ’ s work performance. ” Hernandez , 670 F.3d at
651 ( quotation omitted ). Moreover, “ the work environment must be ‘ both objectively and subjectively offensive. ’ ” Id. (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca
Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998))

.
Dr. Daniel asserts that the district court erroneously held that she
failed to prove severe or per v asive harassment

. We dis agree. As an initial

1 “ Louisiana’s anti

- discrimination statute

. . . is ‘ substantively similar ’ to Title VII, and Louisiana courts routinely look to the federal jurisprudence for guidance. ” McCoy v. City of Shreveport , 492 F.3d 551, 556 n.4 (5th Cir. 2007) ( quoting Trahan v. Rally ’ s Hamburgers, Inc. , 696 So. 2d 637, 641 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997)). Thus, “ the outcome of [Dr. Daniel’s] statutory discrimination and retaliation claims will be the same under the federal and state statutes , ” and “[w] e therefore analyze the issues only under the applicable federal precedents. ” Id. Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

8 matter, the r ecord contains only one allegedly racist comment that an LSU
SVM employee made about Dr. Daniel. In January 2014, Dr. Taboada allegedly told Dr. Daniel that he did not realize that she was Black until her

campus visit because she did no t “ sound Black on the phone.” Dr. Daniel “ignored” that comment, and there is no evidence that Dr. Taboada or anyone else at LSU SVM made similar statements later. T he other statements in the record, though made in Dr. Daniel’s presence, were purported explan ations for the lack of diversity at LSU SVM

. Those
statements thus focused on Black applicants to the school, not Dr. Daniel

. Moreover, according to Dr. Daniel, these scattered statements were made over six years. This is not enough to prove a hostile work environment claim under this court’s precedents

. 2
At bottom, Dr. Daniel failed to demonstrate harassment that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [ her ] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Abbt , 28 F.4th at

--- , 2022 WL 764999, at *4 (quoting Hernandez , 670 F.3d at 651)

. T he statements that she
identifies as harassment “ pale in comparison, both in severity and frequency,
to those found in the cases ” that she cites in her brief

. See Turner v. Baylor

2 See, e.g. , Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr. , 476 F.3d 337, 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2007) (rejecting harassment claim where the plaintiff’s supervisor commented about “ghetto children , ” asserted that African Americans attended “evening classes because they could not qualify for regular [college] admission,” and com mented on the plaintiff’s

“ shopping habits, car, and son ’ s hobby ”). Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

9 Richardson Med. Ctr. , 476 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 2007)

. W e thus conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. 3

B. Racial Discrimination
Next, we assess whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Dr. Daniel ’s racial discriminatio n claim under Title VII

. A plaintiff “ may prove a claim of intentional discrimination

. . . either by direct
or circumstantial evidence.” McCoy v. City of Shreveport , 492 F.3d 551, 556 (5th Cir. 2007). “ If the plaintiff presents only circumstantial evidence, then she must prove discrimination inferentially using ‘ [t]he three

- step McDonnell Douglas

- Burdine minuet.’” Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza,
L.L.C. , 778 F.3d 473, 475 (5th Cir. 2015) ( ci tation omitted ). But if the plaintiff presents direct evidence , “ the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made regardless of the forbidden factor. ” Id. (quoting Brown v. E.
Miss. Elec. Power Ass ’ n , 989 F.2d 858, 861 (5th Cir. 1993) ).
“Because direct evidence is rare, a plaintiff ordinarily uses
circumstantial evidence to meet the test set out in McDonnell Douglas .” Portis v. First Nat’l Bank of New Albany , 34 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1994). “ Under that framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, ” which requires her to show that she “ (1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the employer;

3 Dr. Daniel also asserts that the district court erroneously concluded that she experienced racial harassment exclusively from 2014 to 2016 and that her claim was time

barred to the exten t it concerned that period. But we need not consider these issues because Dr. Daniel’s hostile work environment claim fails for other reasons

. See Campos v. Steves & Sons, Inc. , 10 F.4th 515, 520 (5th Cir. 2021) ( “We may affirm a summary judgment on any ground supported by the record

. . . .” )

. Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

10 and (4) was

. . . treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group.” McCoy , 492 F.3d at 556. If the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case , the burden “ shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reason for its employment
action. ” Id. at 557. If the employer meets that burden, the n the plaintiff

“ bears the ultimate burden of proving that the employe r ’ s proffered reason ”
is “ pretext ” for unlawful discrimination. Id.

i. Direct or Circumstantial Evidence

Dr. Daniel maintains on appeal that she submitted direct evidence of
racial discrimination

. “Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves
the fact [of intentional discrimination] without inference or presumption.”
Portis , 34 F.3d at 328

– 29 (quoting Brown , 989 F.2d at 861 )

. When determining whether comments made at work constitute direct evidence, this court looks to whether the alleged comments are “(1) related to the plaintiff’s protected characteristic; (2) proximate in time to the challenged employment decision; (3) made by an individual with authority over the challenged employment decision; and (4) related to the challenged employment decis ion.” Etienne , 778 F.3d at 476.

The district court concluded that Dr. Daniel did not offer direct
evidence of discrimination and that the McDonnell

- Douglas framework therefore applied to her claims. I t observed that Dr. Daniel relied on argumentation without evidentiary support, overstated the import of record evidence, and failed to demonstrate that any allegedly racist remarks “were related, either substantively or temporally, to the challenged employment
decisions in this cas e

. ”
We agree with the district court. Again, the only allegedly racist
remark that was directed at Dr. Daniel was Dr. Taboada’s comment that she did not “sound Black on the phone

. ” But that does not “prove, without Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

11 inference or presumption, that race was a basis in employment decisions” at
LSU SVM , which is “our ultimate focus” at this juncture. Id. (quotation and alteration omitted) . That is particularly so considering that Dr. Daniel’s telephone interview preceded a campus visit that later resulted in Dr. Daniel receiving an employment offer. Moreover, Dr. Daniel does not identify any record evidence showing that this remark , which occurred in January 2014,
was connected to the discriminatory employment decisions that allege dly occurred years later

. Indeed , the earliest employment decision that
Dr. Daniel challenges

— her alleged relegation to performing clerical duties

— occurred in 2017. Thus , this remark was not “ proximate in time to [any] challenged employment decision.” Id

. For the same reason s , even assuming
that the various statements about the lack of diversity at LSU SVM
concerned Dr. Daniel’s race, they are not direct evidence of racial
discrimination

. ii. Adverse Employment Action
Lacking direct evidence of discrimination, this court applie s the
modified McDonnel Douglas burden shifting framework. The first step is to assess whether the plaintiff “ establish [ed] a prima facie case of
discrimination

. ” McCoy , 492 F.3d at 556. Among the elements that the plaintiff must show to prove a prima faci e case is that she “ suffered some adverse employment action by the employer.” Id. The district court held that
Dr. Daniel did not suffer an adverse employment action. On appeal,
Dr. Daniel argues that the district court erred

. For purposes of Title VII dis crimination claims, “adverse employment actions consist of ‘ultimate employment decisions’ such as hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, granting leave, and compensating.” Thompson v. City of Waco , 764 F.3d 500, 503 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing McCoy , 492 F.3d at 560). Generally, “the mere ‘loss of some job responsibilities’ Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

12 does not constitute an adverse employment action

. ” Id. at 504

. “I n certain instances, ” however, “ a change in or loss of job respon sibilities .

. . may be so significant and material that it rises to the level of an adverse employment
action.” Id.
We consider first the alleged transfer of Dr. Daniel’s job duties and responsibility for the Teaching Academy to Dr. Banse. To start, altho ugh Dr. Daniel’s job duties shifted over time , those changes were not “so significant and material that [they] rise[] to the level of an adverse employment action.”
Id. To be sure, Dr. Daniel lost primary responsibility for curriculum design , b ut that was because “[h]er efforts [had] drifted from ” that role. And although Dr. Daniel alleges that Dr. Banse usurped her duties, their roles
differed in that Dr. Daniel was a “pedagogical expert” whereas Dr. Banse was a “content expert

. ” Dr. Daniel further alleges that Dr. Taboada relegated her to performing “clerical work” when he asked her to copy and paste material during a meeting. However, being “asked at least once to perform administrative tasks outside her job description does not” prove an adverse employme nt action. Price v. Wheeler , 834 F. App’x 849, 856 (5th Cir. 2020). Lastly, Dr. Banse did initiate the Teaching Academy

. But Dr. Daniel
had not started the projec t when Dr. Banse began working on it , and administrators encouraged Dr. Daniel to collaborate with Dr. Banse , which
she declined to do

. These allegations do not establish an adverse employment action. Indeed, t he only case that Dr. Daniel relies on to show otherwise , Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

13 Thompson , is inapposite becau se the changes there were substantially more significant. 4

Nor do Dr. Daniel’s other allegations prove adverse employment
actions . First, although Dr. Daniel says that the faculty voted against reappointing her in 2018 and that she received a poor evaluat ion in 2018, the
record confirms that she was nonetheless reappointed in 2018 and that she
received a “satisfactory” rating that year. Only the evaluation she received in June 2020 for the 2019 year rated her as needing “improvement.”
However , “ a low perfo rmance evaluation alone is not an adverse employment action .” Johnson v. McDonald , 623 F. App ’ x 701, 704 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co. , 144 F.3d 364, 373 n.11 (5th Cir. 1998) ). Second, Dr. Daniel complains that she was
moved into a closet

. But Dr. Daniel requested to move to a different office , and the record lacks any evidence showing that Dr. Daniel’s new office was a “closet,” even if it was smaller than she preferred. Third , the only missed

tra ining opportunit y that Dr. Daniel cites involved an opportunity in which
all the individuals selected for the program were veterinarians, unlike
Dr. Daniel. Finally, Dr. Daniel complains that she was denied staff support , but Dr. Daniel knew when she joine d LSU SVM that she would receive less
support than she previously enjoyed . Further, it is undisputed that
Dr. Daniel received a graduate assistant in 2018. W e therefore conclude that

4 In Thompson , this court reversed the dismissal of a discrimination claim for failure to allege an adverse employment action. 764 F.3d at 502. The plaintiff, a Black man employed as a detective, alleged that his e mployer barred him from searching for or logging evidence, working undercover, giving statements in criminal cases, visiting crime scenes, or leading investigations. Id. Those allegations plausibly showed that the plaintiff “no longer occupie[d] the positi on of a detective” and instead “function[ed] as an assistant to other detectives.” Id. at 505. Accordingly, his position had become “objectively worse” such that “he was subject to the equivalent of a demotion.” Id. (quotation omitted). Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

14 Dr. Daniel’s discrimination claim fails because she did not show an adverse employment action.

C. Retaliation

We now turn to Dr. Daniel’s claim that LSU retaliated against her for reporting racial discrimination and harassment in violation of Title V I 5 and
Title VII. 6 To prove a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) s he

“ engaged in conduct protected by Title VII ” ; (2) s he “ suffered a materially
adverse action ” ; and (3) “ a causal connection exists between the protected activity and t he adverse action.” Cabral v. Brennan , 853 F.3d 763, 766

– 67 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep ’ t , 784 F.3d 263, 269 (5th Cir. 2015) )

. The parties dispute whether Dr. Daniel satisfied the second element. An employment decision constitutes a materially adverse action if
“a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse,” meaning that the action “well might have dissuad e d a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. at 767 (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006)).

5 We assume without deciding that Title VI encompasses a retaliation claim,

see Sewell v. Monroe City Sch. Bd. , 974 F.3d 577, 586 n.4 (5th Cir. 2020), and that the same elements are necessary to sustain such a claim under both Title s VI and VII, see Jones v. S. Univ. , 834 F. App ’ x 919, 923 (5th Cir. 2020) (applying the Title VII retaliation standard to a Title VI claim) (citing Peters v. Jenney , 327 F.3d 307, 320 (4th Cir. 2003); Bhombal v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. , 809 F. App ’ x 233, 238 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) ).

6 Dr. Daniel also brought a claim for reprisal under Louisiana’s whistleblower

statute , La. R.S. § 23:967 . Although Dr. Daniel argues that this statute offers broader protection against retaliation than does Title V II, “our precedent, and that of the Louisiana state courts, has consistently cited to Title VII standards in interpreting § 23:967.” Rayborn v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd. , 881 F.3d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, this court has applied “ the standards and requirements of Title VII when analyzing

. . . retaliation claims under § 23:967. ” Id. We do so again here. Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/08/2022No. 21

- 30555

15 This definition is “slightly” broader than the definition that applies to an adverse employm ent action for purposes of a Title VII discrimination claim. Welsh v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. , 941 F.3d 818, 826 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, although “Title VII’s anti

- retaliation provisions do not protect employees from ‘petty slights, minor annoyances, an d simple lack of good manners,’” a “retaliatory adverse employment action[] .

. . need not rise to the level of [an] ultimate employment decision[].” Id. at 827 (quoting Burlington , 548 U.S. at

67

– 68 )

. To prove that she suffered materially adverse action, Dr. Daniel cites the same allegations that she offered to show that she suffered an adverse employment action for purposes of her Title VII discrimination claim . We concluded above that those allegations failed to establish unlawful
discrimination. Here, “ [w] e similarly hold that the definition applied to retaliatory adverse employment actions still does not encompass any of these allegations.” Id. at 828. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed
Dr. Daniel’s retaliation claims

.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court

. Case: 21-30555 Document: 00516273011 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/08/2022