A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 24, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT L E RO Y M . S M I T H, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O H N E . PO T T E R , Postm as t er G ener al , U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 3031 ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 2 1 4 9 - J W L)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , C ir c u it J u d g e , BROR BY , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge and TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. P lai n ti ff L ero yM . S m ith ap p ea ls pro se f rom the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord ers gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof hi s form erempl oy er , the U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce ( U SPS ) . T hr ough appoi nt ed couns el i n the di s tr i ctcourt , he b r o u g h tc l a i ms u n d e rTi t l e VI I o f th e Ci v i l Ri g h t s Ac to f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U. S . C.-2-

§ § 2 0 0 0 e to 2 0 0 0 e-1 7 , an d the A g e D iscri m ination in E m p loym en t A ct (A D E A ), 2 9 U .S .C . § § 6 2 1 to 6 3 4 , alle g in g ra c e a n d a g e d isc rim in a tio n , h a ra ss m e n t, re ta lia tio n , a ra c ia lly-h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t, a n d c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a rg e . W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . I . Backg r ound M r . Sm i th w as empl oy ed bythe U SPS atthe B ul k M ai l C ent eri n K ans as C ity , K a n sa s f

ro m 1 9 9 2 u n til A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n h e w e n t o n d isa b ili ty r et i r ement . H e cl ai m s thathi s j ob di ffi cul t i es began a ft erhe t es t i fi ed aga i ns tthe US P S a ta u n i o n - g r i e v a n c e h e a r i n g i n Au g u s t2 0 0 1 , c o n c e rn i n g th e r e q u e s to f two pos t al empl oy ees forl i ght - dutyas s i gnm ent s dur i ng the t i m e theyw er e on c ru tch e s. In O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 , M r. S m ith filed a n E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ity ( E E O ) compl ai ntal l egi ng thathi s s upervi s or s di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m and har as s ed hi m on the bas i s of hi s r ace ( A fr i can A m er i can) i n r et al i at i on for tes tify in g a t th e u n io n -g rie v a n c e h e a rin g . T h e E E O c o m p lain t w a s te rm in a ted in D ecem ber 200 2, and M r. S m i th d i d n ot fi l e a fed eral l aw sui tbased o n those c la im s . M r. S m i th all eges t hat hi s supervi sors con t i nu ed to i nti m i date and h aras s hi m . H e as s ert s thaty ounger , femal e, and C auca s i an empl oy ees w er e as s i gned bett erand ea s i erj obs than he, des pi t e hi s m or e s eni ors t atus , and thatnew s u p e rv is o rs a ls o h a ra s s e d h im b a s e d o n w h a t h is fo rm e r s u p e rv is o rs to ld th e m . M r . Sm i th fur theras s ert s thatl es s s eni orempl oy ees w er e as s i gned w or k thatO n N o v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 2 , w ith in 4 5 d a y s o f th e L e tter o f

W a rn in g , M r. S m ith 1 req u ested p re-co m p lai n t cou n seli n g , as re q u ir ed b y2 9 C . F . R . § 1 6 1 4 . 1 0 5 (a). -3- s houl d have be en as s i gned t o hi m . I n addi t i on, he cl ai m s thathi s s upervi s orput hi s fi ngeri n hi s fac e and y el l ed athi m and thata di ffe r ents upervi s ori ns i s t ed that he do a ha zar dous j ob forw hi ch he w as notqual i fi ed, and then y el l ed and th re a te n e d to d is c ip lin e h im fo r r e f u s in g to d o it. I n O ct ober2002, M r . Sm i th w as abs entfr om hi s w or k ar ea w i thout p e rm is s io n o n tw o o c c a s io n s , s o h is s u p e rv is o r i s s u e d h im a L e tte r o f W a rn in g . H e fil ed a se co n d E E O co m p lai n t i n Jan u ary2 0 0 3 , claim ing that h is sup erv isors d iscri m inated ag ains t him o n the b asis o f ra ce (A frican A m erican ), ag e (o v er 4 0 ), and i n r et al i at i on fort es t i fy i ng atthe uni on- gr i evanc e hea r i ng w hen theyi s s ued the L ett er of W arni ng. A ft erhi s s econd EE O compl ai ntw as t erm i nat ed, 1 M r. S m ith filed a tim e lylaw su it i n fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt. T h e d istric t co u rt d ism iss e d so m e o f M r. S m ith ’s c laim s fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u st a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a n d d e ter m in e d th a t h e h a d e x h a u ste d h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s o n h is c la im s b a s e d th e O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 L e tte r o f W a rn in g . O n th e m e rits, th e c o u rt h e ld th a t M r. S m ith h a d n o t ad d u c e d e n o u g h e v id e n c e to s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O n appea l , M r . Sm i th chal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s um m ary -j udgm ent or der s . H e al s o ar gues thathi s court - appoi nt ed att orneym ade e rr or s thataffect ed-4-

th e o u t c o me a n d th a th e wa s d e n i e d h i s r i g h tt o a j u rytr i a l . I n a d d i t i o n , h e c l a i ms th a t p o s ta l e m p lo y e e s h a ra s s e d h im b yin te rfe ri n g w ith th e d e liv e ry o f h is m a il. II . A n a ly sis W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , vi ew i ng th e re c o rd in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p a rt yo p p o s in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Mc G o w a n v . C ity o

f E u fa la , 4 7 2 F . 3 d 7 3 6 , 7 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m o v ing p artyis en ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c); C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -2 3 (1 9 8 6 ).

A . Exhaus t i on of

A dm i nis tr at i ve Rem edi es B efor e w e addr es s the mer i t s of M r . Sm i th’ s cl ai m s , w e mustdet erm i ne the s cope of ourj ur i s di ct i on. Feder al court s do nothave s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on to re v ie w T itle V II a n d A D E A c la im s n o t e x h a u s te d a d m in is tr a tiv e ly. Shi kl es v. Spr i nt /Uni t ed Mgm t . C o. , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 1 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “ [ E ]a c h d isc re te [r et al i at oryordi s cr i m i nat oryact i on] cons t i tut es i t s ow n unl aw ful empl oym ent pr act i ce forw hi ch admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es m us tbe exha us t ed. ” Mar t i nezv. P ot t er , 3 4 7 F .3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). O f the di s cr et e di s cr i m i nat oryorr et al i at oryact s M r . Sm i th i dent i fi ed, one had bee n the s ubj ectof the fi r s tE E O compl ai nt , s o the courthad no j ur i s di ct i on o v e ri tb e c a u s e M r . Smi th h a d fa i l e d t o fi l e s u i twi th i n 9 0 d a y s a f t e rth e EEO p ro c e e d in g s w e re c o n c lu d e d . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (f)(1 ) (p ro v id in g c iv il-5-

a c tio n m a yb e b ro u g h t w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f n o tic e o f

c o n c lu s io n o f

E E O c o m p la in t) . T w o m o re c lai m s h ad n o t bee n raised in an yE E O co m p lai n t, so theyw ere u n e x h a u s te d a n d th e c o u rt lik e w is e la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n . See Shi kl es , 426 F. 3d at 1317 ( hol di ng exhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es “i s a j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e t o s ui tunderT i t l e V I I ” and A D E A ) . I s s uance of the Let t erof W a rn in g w a s th e o n lyd isc re te a c t fo r w h ich M r. S m ith e x h a u ste d h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . A c c o rd in g ly, w e re v ie w th e c la im s b a s e d o n it. B . R ace D is cr i m i nat i on A pl ai nt i ff a s s ert i ng a cl ai m thathe w as t erm i nat ed on the bas i s of r ace m ustfi rs test abli sh a pri m a facie cas e bydem on strat i ng that ( 1) “he w as a m emberof a pr ot ect ed cl as s , ” ( 2) he w as per form i ng hi s j ob s at i s fac t or i l y , and ( 3) “he w as t erm i nat ed underci r cumst ance s gi vi ng r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Sa lg u e ro v . C ity o f C lo v is , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2004) . I f he doe s s o, the bur den s hi ft s t o the defendantt o “art i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe t erm i nat i on thati s notfac i al l ypr ohi bi t ed by T i t l e V I I . ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . O nce the defendantpr ovi des s uch a r eas on, the bur den s hi ft s back t o the pl ai nt i ff t o demonstr at e thatthe r eas on i s a “pr et ext forr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id. T he part i es di s put e onl ythe fi nal s t ep— w hetheri s s uance of the Let t erof W arni ng w as a pr et extforr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. M r . Sm i th cont ends thathe-6-

d em o n str ated p retex t bysh o w ing that sim il arly -si tuated C au ca sian co w o rke rs w e re tr e a te d m o re fa v o ra b ly th a n h e . S i mi l a r l ys i tu a t e d e mp l o y e e s a r e th o s e wh o d e a l wi th th e s a me s upervi s orand ar e s ubj ectt o the s ame st andar ds governi ng p e r fo r ma n c e e v a l u a t i o n a n d d i s c i p l i n e . I n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e rtwo empl oy ees ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, a courts houl d al s o compar e the r el evantempl oym entci r cumst ance s , s uch as w or k hi s t oryand companypol i ci es , appl i cabl e t o the pl ai nt i ff a nd the i nt ended c o m p a ra b le e m p lo y e e s. M o re o v e r, ev e n e m p lo y e e s w h o a re sim ilarly situ a ted m u st h a v e b e e n d isc ip lin e d fo r c o n d u c t o f c o m p a ra b le se rio u sn e ss in o rd e r fo r th e ir d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t to b e re lev a n t. McG ow an , 4 7 2 F .3 d a t 7 4 5 (c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). M r . Sm i th’ s evi dence does notdemonstr at e thatthe C auca s i an empl oy ees w er e s i tuat ed s i m i l ar l yt o hi m . H e di d nots how thatthe C auca s i an empl oy ees vi ol at ed the s ame w or k rul e aga i ns tl eavi ng the w or k ar ea w i thoutperm i s s i on, that the C au ca sian em p loy ee s’ su p erv isors k n ew that theyh ad left th eir w o rk are as, or tha t th e C au ca sian em p loy ee s h ad the s am e su p erv isor as h e. In addi t i on, M r . Sm i th’ s onl yevi dence of r aci al ani m us w as hi s s t at ementthathe had hea r d fr om uni dent i fi ed s upervi s or s and A fr i can A m er i can e m pl oy ees that o n e o f h is s u p e rv is o rs tr e a te d A f ri c a n A m e ri c a n s m o re h a rs h ly th a n C a u c a s ia n s . R . D o c . 8 4 , A ttac h . G , E x . 6 , at 2 6 5 . T h is b rie f, g e n e ra l re fe re n c e to a ru m o r is in s u ffic ie n t to w ith s ta n d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S e e Ha r r is o n v . Wa h a t oy a s , L . L . C. , 253 F. 3d 552, 558 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( “To w i ths t and s um m aryj udgm ent , the no nm ov i ng partym ustcom e forw ard w i th specifi c facts show i ng that there i s a g e n u in e iss u e fo r tria l.” (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d )). M o re o v e r, th e h e a rsa ysta tem e n tsM r. S m ith d id n o t alle g e re talia tio n b a se d o n h is first E E O c o m p lain t. 2 -7- b yco w o rke rs are in ad m issab le he arsa ythat ca n n o t be c o n side red o n su m m ary ju d g m e n t. You ngv. D i l l on C os. , 4 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 5 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). C o n seq u en tl y , w e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyg ran ted s u m m ary j u d g me n tt o th e USP S o n th i s c l a i m. C . R etal i at i on T i t l e V I I ’ s ant i - r et al i at i on pr ovi s i on “forbi ds an empl oy erfr om

‘ di s cr i m i nat [i ng] agai ns t ’ an empl oy ee . . . becaus e thati ndi vi dual ‘ oppos ed any pr act i ce’ m ade unl aw ful byT i t l e V I I or‘ m ade a char ge, t es t i fi ed, as s i s t ed, or part i ci pat ed i n’ a Ti t l e V I I pr ocee di ng ori nves t i gat i on. ” B u rlin g to n N. & Sa n ta Fe Ry . C o . v. Wh ite , ___ U . S. ___, 126 S. C t . 2405, 2408 ( 2006) ( quot i ng 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -3 (a )). M r. S m ith ’s r e talia tio n c laim w a s b a se d o n h is t e s t i mo n ya tth e Au g u s t2 0 0 1 u n i o n - g r i e v a n c e h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g wh e th e rtwo em ploy ees shou l d b e given l i gh t -dut yassi gn m ents w hil e t heyw ere on crut ches. 2 T he uni on- gr i evanc e hea r i ng w as notpr ot ect ed oppos i t i on t o di s cr i m i nat i on a n d th e re fo re n o t p ro te c te d b yT itle V II . C f . Jones v. U. P . S. , Inc. , ___ F. 3d ___, 2 0 0 7 WL 2 6 7 7 1 4 1 , a t* 1 4 ( 1 0 th Ci r . S e p t . 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ Un l e s s a n e mp l o y e rk n o ws thatan empl oy ee i s engagi ng i n pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty , i tcannotr et al i at e aga i ns tthe empl oy ee beca use o f

th e p ro te c te d c o n d u c t, a s re q u ir e d b ys ta tu te .” ). A c c o rd in g ly , su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s c o rre c t o n th e re talia tio n c laim b e c a u se it w a s n o t b a s e d o n p ro te c te d c o n d u c t.In h is a ffid a v it o p p o sin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t, M r. S m ith c laim e d th a t in 3 A u g u st 2 0 0 4 , h is s u p e rv iso r c a lled h im “ b o y ,” a re m a rk th a t ca n b e ra c ially d e ro g a to ry . B u t th is in c id e n t w a s n o t in c lu d e d in th e E E O c o m p lain t; a c c o rd in g ly, th is c o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r i t. See Shi kl es , 426 F. 3d at1317. -8-

D . R aci alHar as s m entand Hos t i l e Envi r onm ent “W hen the w or kpl ace i s perm eat ed w i th di s cr i m i nat oryi nt i m i dat i on, r i di cul e, and i ns ul t , thati s s uffi ci ent l ys ever e orpervas i ve t o al t erthe condi t i ons o f th e v ict im ’s em p loym en t and cre ate a n ab u sive w o rkin g en v ir o n m en t, T it le V II i s vi ol at ed. ” Har r is v. Forkl i f tSys . , Inc. , 510 U . S. 17, 21 ( 1993) ( ci t at i ons and q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). M r. S m ith tes tifie d a t h is d e p o sitio n th a t h e d id n o t re c a ll a n yo f h is s u p e rv is o rs m a k in g a ra c ia lly d e ro g a to ry o r i n a p p ro p ri a te s ta te m e n t. R . D oc. 84, A t t ach. G , E x. 6, at 407- 08. A s di s cus s ed above , M r . Sm i th r el i es on 3 a rum orthatone s upervi s ortr eat ed A fr i can A m er i cans m or e har s hl ythan C au ca sian s, b u t an u n su b stan ti ated rum o r i s insu ffici en t t o resistsu m m ary ju d g m e n t. T o th e e x ten t M r. S m ith se e k s to d e m o n stra te a ra c iallyh o stile envi r onm entbas ed on al l egat i ons thathe w as tr eat ed l es s favor abl ythan C auca s i an empl oy ees , w e aga i n hol d thathe has fai l ed t o s how thathe w as s i tuat ed s i m i l ar l yt o them. W e uphol d the s um m aryj udgm enton thi s cl ai m , as w e ll. E . C ons tr uct i ve D is charge “A con struct i ve d i scharge occu rs w hen an em ploy er, throug h u nlaw ful act s, m akes w or ki ng condi t i ons s o i nt ol er abl e thata r eas onabl e per s on i n the-9-

empl oy ee’ s pos i t i on w oul d fee l for ced t o r es i gn. ” Ex u m v . U. S . Ol y mp i c Co mm. , 3 8 9 F . 3 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e c o u rtem p loy s an o bjecti v e stan d ard t o det erm i ne “the vol unt ar i nes s of an e m pl oy ee’ s r es i gnat i on. ” Id. M r . Sm i th di d notal l ege thatthe Let t erof W arni ng m ade hi s w or ki ng condi t i ons i nt ol er abl e and for ced hi m t o r es i gn. I ndeed, he cont i nued athi s j ob foral m os ttw o m or e y ear s . I n addi t i on, as di s cus s ed above , he had vi r tual l yno e v id e n c e o f

ra c ia l h a ra s s m e n t. See i d. at 11 3 6 n . 8 (rejecti n g p lai n ti ff ’s cons truct i ve di s char ge cl ai m and not i ng thatpl ai nt i ff ha d not“demonstr at ed any part i cul ari ns t ance s of r aci al har as s m entoranyci r cumst ance s demonstr at i ng r aci al hos t i l i ty ”) . T her efor e, s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the U SPS w as a p p ro p ri a te o n th is c la im . F. A ge D is cr i m i nat i on T h e A D E A p ro h ib its d is c ri m in a tio n “ b e c a u s e o f [ a n ] i n d iv id u a l’ s a g e ,” 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 3 (a )( 1 ), fo r t h o s e w h o a re a g e d 4 0 o r o ld e r, i d. § 6 3 1 ( a ) . A p r i ma fac i e ca s e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on “r equi r es evi dence adequa t e t o cr eat e an infere n ce that an em p loym en t dec isi o n w as b ase d o n an il lega l discri m inato ry c ri te ri o n ,” s u c h a s a g e . O ’ C onnorv. C ons ol . C oi n C at er ers C or p. , 517 U . S. 308, 312 ( 1996) ( quot at i on and emphas i s om i t t ed) . Fora pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on, a pl ai nt i ff musts how : ( 1) he bel ongs t o a cl as s pr ot ect ed bythe A D E A , (2) he w as quali fi ed fo r hi s posi t i on , (3) he “suffered an ad verse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n ,” a n d (4 ) h e w a s “ tre a ted les s fa v o ra b lyth a n o th e rs,” u su a lly-10-

th a t h e w a s re p la c e d b ya y o u n g e r p e rs o n . Exum , 3 8 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 4 ; Mi l l erv. E by Rea l t y G r ou p LLC , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). M r. S m i th fail ed to show that the L et t er of W arni ng w as an “ad verse empl oym entact i on” gi ven thathe w or ked foral m os ttw o y ear s aft erhe r ece i ved it, a n d h e w a s n e v e r d e m o te d , s u s p e n d e d , o r t e rm in a te d a s th e re s u lt o f it. M o re o v e r, alth o u g h M r. S m ith a lleg e d th a t th e L e tter o f W a rn in g c a u se d h im to be s crut i ni zed mor e cl os el yand bypas s ed forfavor abl e j ob as s i gnm ent s , he has p rese n ted n o ev iden ce to su p p o rttho se c lai m s. S u m m aryjud g m en t w as th ere fo re a p p ro p ri a te o n th e a g e -d is c ri m in a tio n c la im . G . In e ffec tive A ss ista n c e o

f C o u n se l, Ju ry Tria l, In ter fer e n c e w ith Ma il Forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , M r . Sm i th as s ert s thathi s court - appoi nt ed att o rne yp rov ided ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce an d that h e w as d en ied h is r igh t t o a jury tr i a l . H e a l s o n o w c l a i m s th a tth e U S P S i n t e r fe r e d w i th h i s m a i l d e l i v e ry . We decl i ne t o cons i derthes e cl ai m s beca us e theyw er e notpr es ent ed t o the di s tr i ct c o u rt . See W i l burn v. M i d- Sout h H eal t h D ev. , Inc. , 343 F. 3d 1274, 1280 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( “A n i s s ue i s w ai ved i f i tw as notr ai s ed bel ow i n the di s tr i ct co u rt . ”).-11- I I I . C onc l us i on T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge