T he Hon. W i l l i am W S chwar z er , U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e fort he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of C al i f or ni a, * si t t i ng b ydesi gnat i on.

NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0322n .06 Fi led : M ay

8, 2007 06-2066 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT DA RN ELL ZAN DE RS , Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t, v. JOHN E. P OT T ER, Post ma ster Gen eral, Uni ted S tatesPos tal Ser v ic e, Defendant -A ppel lee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED STAT ES DIST RICT COURTF O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHTRE Y and GIBBO NS, Circuit Judges, and SCHW ARZER, Distri ct * Judg e. PER CU RI AM

. The pl ain ti ff , D ar nel l Zand ers, appeal s from the dis tr ict c our t’ s g ra nt of summary

judg ment to the defendant, John Pott er , the Postmas ter Gene ra l of the U nit ed Sta tes Po stal Service, in th is su it brought pu rsuan t to the provi sions of Title VI I of

the Civ il Ri g htsAct of

1964, 42 U. S.C . §§ 2000e -2000e- 17. Zand ers, an Afri can-Amer ic an mal e, alleged tha t he was the victim of racia l d iscriminatio n beca use his supe rv isor, John Ta lick, p l a c e d a l e tt e r

o f wa r n i n g i n Z a n d e rs ’ s fi l e asa re s u l to f a ct s a n d o mi s s i o n s t h a tt h e p l a i n t i ff ass e rt s were a ls o c ommitt ed by a w hit e mal e w ho di d notrecei v e s imi lar di sc ipl ine from his supe riors.06-2066

Zanders v. Potter

- 2 - T he d istrict court conclud ed th at be cause the lett er of warning did not result i n a loss of po si ti on, sal ar

y , ben efits , or

prest ig e, i t c oul d notbe consi dered an adv erse employ ment act ion of the ty pe nec ess ar y to est abl is h a prim a facie cas e of di sc ri minat ion

. In fact, t he re cord i n thi s c ase ind ic atesthatZ anders h as cont inu ed to re cei v e sal ar y inc re ases , “ spot ” a ward s, an d exce lle n t e valu a ti o n s e ven afte r th e iss u a n ce of th e le tt e r of

wa rn in g. Al ter nati v ely , t he di str ict c our t det er mined that “e v en i f Plai nti ff were abl e to dem onst rate an adverse em ploymen t action , Defend antwould still be e ntitled to sum ma ry judgme nt be ca u s e P laintif f has no t shown that h e ‘was treat ed d if feren tly than similarly situat ed ind iv idua ls outside of his protect ed class. ’” In reach ing that con clusion, the district jud g e not ed th at, alt houg h Z anders a nd th e w hit e male fill ed the s ame su per v is or y pos it ion , the w hit e mal e di d s o onl y on an inter im basi s w hil e the plain ti ff w as on anot her

as si g nment and that“the expecta tions for an em ployee in a no n-sup erv isory role w ho te mp o ra rily ass umes a su per

v is or y role w oul d be lower , or at leas t different, than the e x pect ati ons for a pe rman entman ager.” The di str ict c our

t i n thi s c ase has abl y

su mmari z ed th e rele v ant e v ide nce and has cor re ctl y id e n ti f ie d t he appl ic abl e l aw . Gi v en th at t re atment of the pl ain ti ff ’scl aims , t he is suanc e of a full , w ri tt e n o p inion by thi s cour

t woul d be dupl ic ati v e and woul d s er v e no precede ntial pur pose. W e the re fore AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ict c our t upo n the re asoni ng se t fort h i n tha t c our t’ s o pin ion and order

fil ed on Jul y

21, 2006.