The Honor able Nancy G. Edm unds, United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0755n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 11, 2008 No. 07-4328 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
LO RI S HA NK, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. MIK E JOHANNS, Secre tary

of Ag riculture, Defendant-

Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT CO URT FOR THE NORTHE RN DI STRI CT OF O H IO O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE an d COOK, Circ uit Jud ges; EDM UNDS, Distric t Judge. * COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Plaintiff-Appellant L ori Shank filed a complaint under Title VI Iof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. , ag ainst her employ er, D efe ndant-Appe llee Se c r e ta r y o f A g r ic u lt ur e , M ik e J o h an n s ( th e “ Se c r e ta r y ” ) , a ll e g in g d is c r im in a ti o no nth e b a s is o f s e x. She soug ht damag es and injunc t i v e relief as a r esult of alleg ed sexual hara ssment, denials of tr an s f e r s , f o r c e d r e a s s i g n m e n t s , an d

r e t a l i a t i o n . B y

c o n s e n t , t h e c a s e w a s r e f e r r e d t o a m a g ist ra te judge , who g rante d summary judgme nt for the Sec reta ry and ente red judg ment in his favor. We revie w a g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo. Mi lle r v . Ad mi n. Of fic e of t heCou rts , 448 F .3 d 8 87 , 8 93 (6 th Cir . 200 6)
. Th e mov ing pa rt y is en tit le d to summa

ry jud g me nt “ if

the ple a din g s,No. 07-4328

Shank v. J

ohanns

2 the discover

y and dis closure materials on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issueNo. 07-4328

Shank v. J

ohanns

3 as to any materia l fac t and t hat t he movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 5 6( c ); see also Ande rson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). We view fa ctual
e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t f avo ra ble to t he no n- mov ing

pa rt y and dr aw a ll r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s in that party ’s favor. See Hende rson v. W alled Lake Consol. Sch. , 469 F.3d 479, 487 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Summary judgme nt is not appropriate if the evidenc e would per

mit a rea sonable jury

to return a verdic t for the non- moving pa rty
. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251-52. Wit h respe ct to Shank’s sex discrimination and sex ual har assment claims, t he district cour t
c on c lud e d th a t on ly

tho se inc ide nts that w e re tim e ly re po rt e d to an E qu a l E mpl oy me nt O pp or

tun ity Couns e lor we re pr e se rv e d, and that Sha nk ’s oth e rw ise -d e fa

ult e d c la ims did no t meri t equita ble tolling. On Shank’s t imely claim—a discr imination claim based on the de nial of her application for
re a ssi g nme nt and pr omo tio n in 20 02 —th e c ourt c on c lud e d that Sha nk ha d fa ile d to make out a pr ima fac ie case of sex discrimination and, in any case , had fa iled to rebut the Sec reta ry ’s proff ere d rea son fo r d e ny in g h er re qu e st: that no ava ila ble po sit ion

e xiste d at th e tim e of

he r a pp lic a tio n. As to Shank’s claim that her

files wer e disca

rded in re t al i at i o n for her filing of a c omplaint, the court
c on c l u d e d

t h a tS h an k

h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s ha p r i m a f a c i e c a s e b e c a

u s e s h e c o u l d

n o te s t abli sh causation and bec ause she could not show that she had suf fer ed a qua lifying a dverse employ ment action. After car efully

revie wing the re cord, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, w e conc lude that the district court wa s corr ect in its conclusion that the Secr etar y was e ntitled to sum mary judgme nt. As the district c ourt’s opinion c orre ctly sets out the law g overningthe issues raise d and clea rly articulates the re asons under lying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by

this CourtNo. 07-4328

Shank v. J

ohanns

4 woul d s e r

v e n o u s e f

u l p ur p o s e . A c c o r d in g ly , f

o r th e r e a s o n s s tate d in th e d is tr ic t c ourt’s memorandum de cision and orde r, we AF F IRM
.