The Honor able Stephen J. Murphy , I I I , United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District * of Michig an, sitting by

designation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0430n.06 No. 09-5912 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
RA Y A . G AI L ES, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. FED ERALEXPRESS CORPORATI ON, dba F edex Se rv ic e s, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: GRI FF I

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; and MURPHY, District Judge. * PER C URIAM. P l ai ntiff Ray

A. Gailes f

iled this action alleg ing va rious employ

ment discrimination and reta liation claims ag ainst his employer, de fenda nt Fede ral Express Corporation (“ Fe dEx ”). F edEx moved for summar

y judgme nt on all of Gailes’ s claims. The district cour t gr anted F edEx’s moti on and dismissed the ac tion. Gailes timely appea ls. After car efully revie wingthe re cord be low, the parties’ brief s, and the a

rguments contained the re in, we are pe rs ua de d that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y a na ly zed the iss ue s in

thi s c a se and

c or re c tly g rante d Fe dEx summary

judgme nt. Rather than issue a detailed opinion, which woul dserve noNo. 09-5912

Gailes v. Fe d. Express Corp.

The district cour

t may not have se t forth in fu l l d etail all of Gailes’ most pertinent 1 alleg ations. For example, the district court did not mention in connec tion with Gailes’ alleg ations that he wa s rejec ted fo r a l at er al pos ition that the posit ion description was c hang ed by a F edEx supervisor sometime a fter be ing inf ormed that Ga iles was the most qualified pe rson for the orig inal position. I n addition, the district court desc ribed Ga iles as h avingadmitted that he “ha [d] no pe rs on a l kn ow le dg e ” o f

wh e t h e r h is s up e rv iso r d isc los e d h is b a c k in jur y to h is c o- wo rk e rs , “ and

on ly a ssume [d] sh e did a s it is h is c onte nti on thi s w a s th e on ly

wa y his c ow or

ke rs c ou ld h ave g le ane d th is information.” In fac t, Gailes cla imed in his response to the summary judgme nt motion t hat he met wi th h is s up e rv iso r d ir e c tly in June 20 04 , c on fr onte d he r a bo ut dis c us sin g his me dic a l c on dit ion in front of othe r employees, a nd that s he apolog ized; thi s acc ount is consistent with t he super visor’s appar ent handwritten notes of the same meeting

. Neve rtheless, no a dditional analy sis is necessary

. As to Gailes beingwrong ly denied the latera l-move position, the district court corre ctly observe d that no adver se employ ment action wa s taken a g ainst Gailes. As to G ailes’ supervisor mentioning his bac k condition to his co-worke rs, eve n a ssumin gthat th is i nf

or matio n is the kin d p ro te c te d f ro m di sc los ur e un der

the AD A, Ga ile s mu st establish that the ADA violation cause d some sort of tang ible injury

. Se e Ha rri so n v . B e nc hm ar

k Electronics Huntsville, I

nc. , 593 F.3d 1206, 1216-17 (11th Cir. 2010) (collec ting c ases) . Ex cept f or a g ener al complaint that all of FedEx’s actions caused him emotional distress, Gailes ha s not alleg ed any injury resultingfrom the a lleg ed disclosure of hi s injury

. Compare Cossette v. Minne sota Power & Light , 1 8 8 F
. 3 d

9 6 4 , 9 7 0 ( 8 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( s umm ar

y ju d g me n t n o t a

p p r o p r iate wh e r e th e r e w as evidenc e that dis closure of medical information cause d plaintiff’s application for another job t o be reje cted, r esulting in money damag es) with Tice v. Centre Area Transp. Auth. , 247 F.3d 506, 520 (3d Cir. 2001) (“ba

re” alleg ations in complaint of mental and e motional dist ress not suf ficient to survive summary judgme nt). - 2 - useful purpose , we a dopt the district court’s re asoningset forth in its order da ted J uly 6, 2009. 1 AFF I RMED.