Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11060 Su m m ar y Cal endar
DALE M I CHELE S TI NGLEY P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. DEN- M AR I NC; RAI L UN LI M I TE D I NC D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- c v- 673
B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t D a l e M ic h e le S tin g le y , pro se , app eal s t h e di st ri ct
cou rt ’ s or der gran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en tt o D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees D en - M ar, I nc . a nd Rai lU nl i m i t e d, I nc . (c o l l e c t ive l y “ D e n- M ar” ) o n he rs e xua lha r as s m e nt
a n d r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s u n d e rT i t l e VI I
. Fo r t h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we AF FI RM
. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n O ct ober 9, 200 6, Sti n gl ey bega n w orki n g as a cl erk at D en - M ar un der United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 11060

2 t he s upe r vi s i o n o f

J o hn M ul dr o w . O n e m o nt h l at e r , St i ngl e y r e po r t e d t o D e nM ar’ s hu m an res ou rces d ire cto r, K en n et h D oak e, t h at M u l drow ha d been
sex u a l l y h a ra ssingh er. T h a t aft ern oo n ( a F ri d a y), D oa k e con tacted M u l d row to ad vi s e hi m o f t he c o m pl ai nt
. The f o l l o w i ng Tues da y, M ul dr o w s t o ppe d r e po r t i ng t o w ork. As o f

t he s e c o nd n o - s ho w da y, he e f fe c t ive l y r e s i gne d p e rc o m pa ny po l i c y. Doa ke pr o m pt l y no t i f i e d St i ngl e y of

M u l dr o w ’ s r e s i gna t i o n, a nd s he
a g r e e d wi t h D o a k e t h a tf u r t h e ra c t i o n w a s u n n e c e s s a r y . R o n F r e n c h b e c a me S t i n gl ey’ s new sup ervi sor. O n D ecem ber 30, 200 6, Sti n gl ey sent D oak e an ot h er l et t er t o report di sagreeable cond u ctby a cow orker, N i n a T i l l m on . I n t h e l et t er, Sti n gl ey st ated th a t sh e fel t un com fortab l e w h en T i l l m on en ga ge di n ex ten sive p h on e ca l l s w i th M ul dr o w a tt he o f

f i c e , a l l e ge dl y di s c us s i ng w hatha d ha ppe ne d t o hi m . She f u rt h er al l eged t h at T i l l m on — as a resul tof t h ese c al l s— m al i ci ou sl y di sparag ed h er t o ot h er c o- w orkers, causi n g at l east o n e o th e r person t o t reather l ess cordi al l y an d i m pl i ed that Til l m on ’ s act i on s w ere l ead i n g t o an un t en able w ork
e nvi r o nm e nt
. Due t o s e ve r e w e at he rpr o bl e m s de l ay i ng m ai lde l ive r y, D o ak e rece ive d the l etter on Ja n u a ry18 , 2 0 0 7 , a n dqu i ck l y a sk ed F ren ch to i n ve sti ga te th e m a t t e r . O n J a n u a r y2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , F r e n c h m e t w ith T illm o n to d is c u s s h is in v e s tig a tio n . T h e n e x t d a y , T illm o n a b a n d o n e dh e rp o s itio n a n de ffe c tiv e ly resi gn ed. Th ereaf

t er, Sti n gl ey reporte d n o fu rt h er act s of ha rassm en tor ret al i ati on t o D oak e. O n M ar c h 7 , 2 00 7, Fr e nc h c o nt act ed D o ak e t o s ugg e s te l i m i nat i ng t he cl erk posi t i on , al on g w i t h a perm an en t l ayoff of S t i n gl ey, pu rport edl y as part of
a c o m pa ny- w i de pl an t o c utc o s t s a f t e rt he l o s s o f

a l uc r at ive c o nt r ac t
. Doa ke agr ee d and s c hedul ed St i ngl ey’ s em pl oym entt er m i na ti on f orM ar c h 17, 2007. O n M ar c h 1 2, 2 00 7, St i ngl e y l e f tFr e nc h anote on h i s de s k, i n whi c h s he obj ect ed to h i s “ rud e an d m oody ” t reat m en tof her. Th i s l ed F rench t o contact D oak e t h e nex tdayan d s u ggest accel erat i n g h er t erm i n ati on . D oak e res pon dedN o. 08- 11060

3 t h at, despi t e t h e note, t h ey w ou l d “s t ay w i t h t h e pl an . ” D en - M ar t erm i n ated St i ngl e y’ s e m pl o ym e nto n M ar c h 1 7, 2 00 7, a s s c he dul e d. Af t e rs ubm i t t i ng a c o m pl ai ntt o t he E EO C andr e c e ivi ng a D i s m i s s ala nd N o tic e o f R ig h ts , S tin g le y tim e ly file ds u it a g a in s t D e n -M a ra s s e r tin gth r e e T itle V II cl ai m s, w h i ch she ch aract eri zed as sexu alha rassm en t , hosti l e w ork
en vi ronm en t , an d w ron g fu l ter m i n ati on . D en - M ar l aterm oved f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t on S t i n gl ey’ s cl ai m s. T h e di st ri ct court den i ed s u m m ary j u dg m en ton S i n gl ey’ s s exu alha rassm en tcl ai m bu tgran t ed D en - M ar’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en ton h er r em ai n i n g cl ai m s. T h e di st ri ctcourtl ateror de r e d Sti ngl ey t o present evi den ce on a n ecess ary (bu tu n cha l l en ged ) el em en tof t h e sexua lha rassm en tcl ai m — t h at t h e al l eged h a ra ssm en taf

fec t ed a t er m orc ondi t i on o f herem pl oym ent

— t o a voi d a s ua sp o n tegran tof sum m ary j u dg m en tforD en - M ar on tha tcl ai m as w el l
. Sti n gl ey f i l e d am o t i o n f

o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n o f t he f i rsts um m ar y j udg m e nto r de ra nd a response t o t h e court ’ s su asp o n te o r d e r r e g a r d i n g h e r s e x u a l h a r a s s me n tc l a i m. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed S t i n gl ey’ s m ot i o n forre co n sid e ra tion , g ra n te dsum m ary j udg m e nti n fav o ro f D e n - M ar on St i ngl e y’ s s e xua lha r as s m e ntc l ai m , a nd
e nt e r e d af

i nalj udg m e ntdi s m i s s i ng al lof hercl ai m s . St i ngl e y t i m e l y ap pe al e d. I I . J URI S DI CT I ON AND S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew t h e f in a l ju d g m en tof

t h e di st ri ctcourt purs uant t o 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1291. We r e v i e w t h e g r a n to f s u mma r yj u d g me n td e n o v o , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. St r o ngv . Un i v . He a l t h c a r eSy s . , L
. L. C. , 482 F. 3d 802 , 805 (5t h C i r. 2 007 )
. Ad i st ri ctcou rt ’ s gran tof sum m ary j u dg m en tis proper w h e n “t h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l fa c t a n d
. . . th e m o v a n t is
en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tt e r of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c ); s ee als o A n d ers on v. L ib erty L obby, I n c. , 477 U
. S
. 242 , 248 ( 198 6)
. W e m ay aff i rm sum m ary j u dg m en t , regardl ess of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r u l i n gs, i f t h e rec ordN o. 08- 11060

4 c o n t a in s a n a d e q u a te a n d in d e p e n d e n t b a s is fo rth a t r e s u lt. D ega n v . Ford Mot or Co. , 8 6 9 F .2d 8 8 9 , 8 9 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON Bec aus e St i ngl e y pr oceeds p ro s e , w e c ons t r ue herar gum ent s l iber al l y. S ee Haines v. K

erner , 4 04 U
. S. 5 19 , 5 20 ( 19 72 ) (pe rc ur i am )
. B r o ad l y c o ns t r ui ng S t i ngl ey’ s bri ef, she argu es t h at ( 1) t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n gran t i n g sum m ary j u d g me n to n h e rs e x u a lh a r a s s me n tc l a i m su asp o n te , ( 2) a gen u i n e i ssue of
m ater i alfactexi st ed on her sexua lha rassm en tcl ai m , ( 3) t h e di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n “ m e r gi ng” he rr e t al i at i o n a nd r e t al i at o r y di s c har ge c l ai m s , a nd ( 4) t he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n g r ant i ng s um m ar y j udg m e nton herr e t al i at i o n a nd
r et al i at or y di sc harge c l ai m s on gr ounds di f fer entf r om tho se t hatD en- M ar r ai s e d. A . S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t C la im W e f i r s ta ddr e s s t he i s s ue s c on cerni ng St i ngl e y’ s s e xua lha r as s m e nt cl ai m . To esta b li sh a pri m a faci e case of sexua lha rassm en tby a sup ervi sor u n der T i t l e V II , an em pl oyee m u stshow : “ ( 1) tha t[s h e] b el on gs t o a prot ect ed
c l as s ; ( 2) t hat[ s he ] w as s ubj e c tt o unwel c o m e s e xua lha r as s m e nt ; ( 3) t hatt he h a r a s s me n tw a s b a s e d o n s e x ; a n d( 4 ) t h a tt h e h a r a s s me n ta f fe c t e da t e r m, con d i ti on , or p rivil eg e of em p l oy m en t. ” Ar y a i n v . W

a l

- Ma r tSt o r e s Tex . LP , 534 F
. 3d 47 3, 47 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 08 ) ( quo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)
. The di s t r i c tcourt
n ot i f i ed S t i n gl ey of

i t s i n te n tion t o suasponte gran tsum m ary j u dg m en ton S t i n gl ey’ s s exu alha rassm en tcl ai m . A f t er c on si deri n g h er respon se, the cou rt h eld th a t Sting l eyh a d fa i l ed to estab l i sh a ge n u i n e i ssu e of m a terial fact as to
w h eth er th e a l l ege d hara ss m entaf f ected a term or con d i ti on of h er em p l oy m en t. W e agree. St i ngl ey f

i r star gues t hatt he di st r i c tcour ter r ed i n ac t i ng su asp o n tetoN o. 08- 11060

Stingleyals o a ssert s th at the di strictc ourt’s suaspontedecision , after de nying Den- 1 Mar’s motionfor summaryj udgment on the same clai m, amounts to a form of double j eopardy and abu se of discretion. These arguments lack merit. The Double J eopardy Cl auseapp lie s toth e im po sitionof punish me nt, s ee Hu ds o n v . U n i te d States , 52 2 U .S. 93 , 99(19 97), and neitherthe di strict court’s initi al deni al nor subsequent grant of su mmary ju dgment can be consi dered a punish ment. Th e district court also had inherent authorityto re-examine the merits of su mmary ju dgment and coul d not abuseit s discretionbydoingso. 5 g r a n t D e n -M a rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n h e r s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t cla im
. Itis w e ll 1
s e ttled th a t a d i stri ct cou rt can gra n t su m m a ryj u d ge m en t su asp o n tes o l o ng a s th e a d ve rse p a rty h a d ad eq u a te n oti ce to com e forw a rd w ith allof i ts
e v id e n c e . S ee Celo texCo rp . v . Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 6 (1 9 8 6 ); s ee a ls o Lov e v. Nat’ l Med. E n t ers . , 230 F
. 3d 765 , 770 –71 ( 5th C i r. 200 0)
. Acourtprovi des a pa rt y w i t h adeq u ate noti ce by adh eri n g t o t h e sam e t i m e f ram e prescr ibed f

or a pa r t y’ s m o t i o n f

o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt , w hi c h i s a tl e as tt en d ays bef o r e t he d a ys e t fo rt h e h e a r in g . SeeLove , 2 3 0 F .3 da t 7 7 0 ; seealso F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 6 (c). H er e, t he di st r i c tc our tnot i f i ed St i ngl ey— i n an or derdat ed Sept em b er 12 , 200 8— t o “ f

i l e w h atever she w i she[d] t o f i l e” by Sep t em ber 26, 200 8, on w h et h er i t sh ou l d m ake a su asp o n terul i n g. B ecau se t h e courtprovi ded Sti n gl ey t en b u s in e s s d a y s (w ith in w h ic h s h e in fa c t file dare s p o n s e ) a n dim p lic it i n st ructi on s t o present s u f f i ci en tev id en ce, w e f i n d sh e ha d ad equ ate noti ce. Th er ef or e, the di st r i c tc our tdi d noter ri n ac t i ng su asp o n tet o gran tsum m ary ju d g m e n t o n S tin g le y ’ s s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t c la im
. S t i n gl ey al so argues t h at s h e presented gen u i n e is su e s of m ater i alfact t hatw ar r ant e d t he deni alo f s um m ar y j udg m e nto n he rs e xua lha r as s m e nt
c la im
. U p o n re c e iv in gth e d is tr ic t co u r t’s n o tic e o f p o te n tia l su asp o n ter ul i ng, w hi c h po i nt e d o uta l ac k o f e vi de nc e t hatt he a l l e ge d ha r as s m e nta f fe c t e d a t e r m o rc o ndi t i o n o f

St i ngl e y’ s e m pl o ym e nt , St i ngl e y bo r e t he b ur de n o f g o i ng b e y o n d h e rp le a d in g s a n d p r e s e n tin gs u ffic ie n t e v i d e n c e t o th e co n tr a r y . S ee Celot ex , 477 U
. S. at325. To do s o, s he had t o pr es entev i denc e e st abl i shi ng t hat t h e al l eged ha rassm en tw as suf f i ci en t l y severe orpervasi v e so as t o al t er herN o. 08- 11060

6 w o r k in gco n d itio n s o rcr e a te a n a b u s iv e w o r k in ge n v ir o n m e n t. A ry a in , 534 F. 3d at479. T h i s Sti n gl ey fai l ed to do, as m ostof t h e m ater i al s sh e presented di d n ot
c o n s tit u te co m p e te n t s u m m a r yju d g m e n t e v id e n c e . F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 5 6 s e ts o u t t h e s ta n d a r d s fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t a n dg e n e r a lly req u ires th a t evide n ce b e sw orn , certi fi ed , or ve ri fi ed m a terialf or a cou rt t o c o n s id e rit. S ee F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c ), (e ); L odge HallM u sic , Inc. v. W aco Wrangl er C l u b, I

n c. , 8 3 1 F .2 d 7 7 , 8 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ); s e eals o Ki ng v . D oga n , 31 F
. 3d 344 , 346 ( 5th C i r. 199 4)
. H e re, t h e com petent s u m m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce c o ns i s t s o f

D o ak e ’ s a f

f i da vi ts ubm i t t e d i n s upp o r to f D e n- M ar ’ s m o t i o n, D e nM ar ’ s t h i r t e e n r e fe r e n c e d a n d v e r i f i e de x h ib i t s , a n dS t i n g l e y ’ s o n e o p p o s i ng af f i da vi t
. A l t h ou gh Sti n gl ey’ s af f i da v it r e feren ces m an y— bu tnot al l

— of her
ex h ib i ts, as w ellas h er re sp on se to D en -M a r’ s m oti on f or su m m a ryj u d gm en t, she had nei t herherex hibi t s norherr es ponse p rop erly sw or n orc er t i f i ed as
r e qui r e d. St i ngl e y’ s c o m pl ai nta nd o t he rpl e ad i ngs w e r e s i m i l ar l y unv e r i f i e d. T h u s, nei t h er t h e fact u alal l egati on s i n Sti n gl ey’ s c om pl ai n tor response, nor a n yo f th e fa c ts in th e u n a u th e n tic a te dd o c u m e n ts a tt a c h e da n dre fe r r e dto in h er af f i da vi t , are c om petent s u m m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce. F u rth er, n on e of th e com p eten t su m m a ry j u d gm en t ev i d en ce s e ts f orth
a n yfa c t s s u b s t a n t i a t i n gS t i n g l e y ’ s a l l e g a t i o ns o f s e x u a lh a r a s s m e n t
. As S tin g le ya d m its , sh e w r o te h e ra ffid a v it t o d i s p u t e th e fa c tu a l a s s e r tio n s in D o ake ’ s a f

f i da vi t
. Butno ne o f

t he fac t s St i ngl e y di s put e s he l p he rm e e tt he bu rden of

provi n g t h at t h e al l eged ha rassm en taf fect ed a ter m or cond i t i on of he re m pl o ym e nt
. Fo re xa m pl e , St i ngl e y di s put e s t hathe r i ni t i al c al lt o D o ak e o c c u r r e d o n N o v e m b e r1 0 i n s te a do f N o v e m b e r1 1 , th a t D o a k e in c o r r e c tly
recoun t ed w h at he t ol d M u l drow , an d that D oak e a ctu a ll y i n vest i gated h er c l a i m . N o ne o f t he s e fa c t s t e nd t o s ho w s e v e r e o r p e r v a s iv e ha r a s s m e ntby M ul dr o w ; r at he r , t he y r e f l e c tdi s put e s a s t o w he t he rD e n- M ar pr o m pt l y andN o. 08- 11060

Stingleycontends on appeal thatDen-Mar misch aracteri zed her hostile work 2 environ me nt cl aima s aret ali ationclaim
. But n either Stingley’s co mp laint norh erres po n se to Den-Mar’ s motion for summary ju dgment alleged that Tillmon’s hostile t r eatment, indivi duallyor in conc ert with Muldrow, was based on her ge nder or anyother characteristic protected under Title VI I. Rather, Stingleyalleged th at Tillmonmistre ated her because of the sexu al h ara ssm ent co mp laint a gain stMul drow . Stin gley’sfurtheralle gation s inher re sp on se regardingFrench’s conduct si milarlysoundo f r etaliation. Therefore, lib erallycon struing Stingley’s pro sebrief, we con strue her secon d an d third clai ms as clai ms of retaliation. 7 ad e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s e d h e r c o m p l a i n t
. Th e c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e , v i e we di n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o St i ngl ey, es tab l i she s t hats he r epo r t ed ac t s of s exual haras sm entby M ul dro w t o D oake , t hatD oake t oo k ac t i on i n r es ponse , and t hat M u l drow res i gn ed severalday s l a te r. B eyon d these basi c fact s, w e w i l lnot presum e as t rue an y of Sti n gl ey’ s al l egati on s and asser t i on s because she d i d n ot p r e s e n t s w o r n s t a t e me n t s a s t o Mu l d r o w ’ s a c t s o f s e x u a l h a r a s s me n t
. I n s u m, n on e o f th e co m p eten t su m m a ryj u d gm en t evide n ce se ts f orth sp ecif

i c fa cts d em on stratingthe sev erity or p erv a siven ess o f th e a l l eg ed sex u a lh a ra ssm en t. W e concl u de that Sti n gl ey di d n ot present a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact t hatw o ul d war r anta de ni alo f s um m ar y j udg m e nto n herse xua lha r as s m e nt
c la im
. W e th e r e fo r e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n o n th is cla im
. B . R e t a l i a t i o n a n d R e t a l i a t o r y D i s c h a r g e C l a i ms St i ngl e y al s o a ppe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n o n he rr e t al i at i o n a nd ret al i ator y di scharge cl ai m s. To establ i sh a p ri m a faci e case of ret al i ati on 2
u n der T itl e V II, an em pl oyee m u stshow : “ ( 1) t h at s h e eng aged i n a prot ect ed
ac t ivi t y; ( 2) t hatan adver se em pl oym ent ac t i on oc c urr ed; and ( 3) t hat a c ausal l i n k ex i sted be tw ee n the pr otected activi ty a n dthe ad v e rse a cti on . ” B ake rv. A m . A i rl i n es, I

n c. , 430 F
. 3d750 , 754 ( 5t h C i r . 200 5) ( quo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d,
num ber i ng added)
. St i ngl ey as se r t s t hat t he di st r i c t c our ter r ed i n “ m er gi ng” h er c l ai m s and i n gran t i n g sum m ary ju d g m e n ton grou n ds ot h er t h an t h ose r a i s e d b yDe n - M a r . We n e e d n o ta d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s , h o we v e r , b e c a u s e we f i nd t hatt he r e c o r d c o nt ai ns a n a de qua t e a nd i nde pe nde ntb as i s t o g r antN o. 08- 11060

8 sum m ar y j udgm entw hen as se ss i ng t hes e c l ai m s on t he gr ounds t hatD en- M ar di d rai se. A s t o Sti n gl ey’ s ret al i ati on cl ai m , she contend s t h at Ti l l m on an d F rench p e r p e t u a t e d a h o s t il e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n tin r e t a li a t io n fo rM u ld r o w ’s t erm i n ati on du e t o Stingl ey’ s s exu alha rassm en tcom pl ai n t
. I n i t s m ot i on f or s u m m a r yju d g m e n t , D e n -M a ra s s e r t e dth a tS t in g le yc o u ld n o tp r o v e T il lm o n ’s
a lle g e d r e t a lia to r yco n d u c t a m o u n te dto a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . W e agree.A n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n is o n e th a t “a re a s o n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e fo u n d
. . . [to b e ] m a t e r i a llya d v e r s e , w h ic h in th is co n te x t m e a n s it w e ll
m i ghthave di ss uaded a r eas onabl e w or ker f r om m aki ng or suppor t i ng a c harge of discri m i n a ti on . ” B u rling ton N
. & S a n ta F e Ry . Co . v . W

h ite , 548 U
. S. 53, 68 (2 0 0 6 ) (q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ). A s w ith S tin g le y ’ s s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t c la im , t h e rec ord contai n s no com petent evidence t o su bstanti ate S t i n gl ey’ s al l egati on t h a ts h e wa s s u b j e c tt o a n a d v e r s e e mp l o y me n ta c t i o n . S t i n g l e y of fe r e dt wo pi ec es of

ev i denc e: ( 1) a l et t ers he s entt o D oake , r epo r t i ng herbe l i ef t hat T i l l m on m al i ci ou sl y t al ked abou t h er and caused ot h ers t o t reather l ess c o r di al l y, a nd ( 2) t he no t e St i ngl ey l ef to n Fr e nc h’ s de s k, pr o t e s t i ng hi s r ude anddi s r e s pe c t f

ult r e at m e nto f

he r . ButSt i ngl e y’ s l e t t e rt o D o ak e do e s no t hi ng to su b stan tia te t h e a l l eg ed h a ra ssm en t, as iti s on l y e vid en ce th a t sh e se n t a l e t t e ra nd n o tt hatt he e ve nt s de s c r ibe d i n t he l e t t e ra c t ual l y o c c ur r e d. And St i ngl e y’ s no t e t o Fr e nc h, i n a ddi t i o n t o b e i ng unv e r i f i e d, fail s t o r e c o unta ny speci f i c fact s r egard i n g F rench ’ s beh a v ior . In sh ort , w e f i n d the recor d i ns uf f i c i e n t to rai se ag e nui ne i s s ue o f fac ta s t o w he t he rSt i ngl e y s uf fe r e d a
m a t e r ia ll ya d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n ta c t io n fo rth is c la im
. G i v e n th a tD e n -M a r ’s
m o t i on fors um m ar y j udg m e ntpr o vi de d St i ngl e y pr o pe rno t i c e t o pr e s e nt
s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o pr o ve a n a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nta c t i o n, w e a f f i r m t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n S tin g le y ’ s re ta lia tio n cla im
.N o. 08- 11060

9 Fi nal l y, a s t o St i ngl e y’ s re t al i at o r y di s c har ge c l ai m , s he a s s e r t s t hats he
w a s term i n a ted i n re tali a ti on for en ga gin g i n T i tl e V II- p rotecte dactivi ty. In it s m ot i on f

ors um m ar y j udgm ent , D en- M ar ar gued t hat St i ngl ey c oul d notpr ove a c aus all i nk b e t w e e n t he pr o t e c t ed ac t ivi t y o f he rf i l i ng a s e xua lha r as s m e nt
com pl ai n tan d h er em pl oym en tt erm i n ati on . W e agree. W he n a pl ai nt i f

f pr e s e nt s no d i r e c te vi de nc e o f r e t al i at i o n, s he b e ar s t he i n i t i albu rden of

est abli shi n g a cau sall i n k “ t h rough ci rcum st an t i alevi den ce of
a retali a torym otive . ” F a b elav. S o co rr o In d ep . S ch
. D ist. , 3 2 9 F .3 d4 0 9 , 4 1 5 n .6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). “If

th e p la in tiff s u c c e e d s in o ffe r in gcir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in sup port of

each el em en tof

her cl ai m , she crea t es a . . . presum pti on of reta l i a ti on , an d the bu rd en s h i ft s to the em p l oy er to d em on strate a legiti m a te
rea son f

or th e a d ve rse e m p l oy m en t acti on . ” I d. “ If th e e m p l oyer produ ces e vi de nc e o f

a l e gi t i m at e r e as o n f o rt he a c t i o n, t he b ur de n s hi f t s ag ai n t o t he p l a i n ti ff

to reb u t t h e em p l oy er’ s n on -retali a toryration a l e.” I d. E ven assum i n g t h at Sti n gl ey sati sf i ed h e r i n i t i albu rden , she h as not show n t h at D en - M ar’ s l egi t i m ate, n o n -retal i ator y reason f or t erm i n ati n g h er em pl oym ent

— t o r educ e i t s w or kf or c e a f t erl os i ng a l ucr at ive c ont r ac t

— w as p r e te x t fo ra n a c t u a l re ta lia to r yre a s o n . T h e o n lyfa c t S tin g le ys p e c ific a lly di spu t es as t o pretext i s an i n consi st en cy i n t h e reason D oak e provi ded f or her di sc harge
. I n hi s af f i davi t , D oake as se r t ed t hat D en- M ar l os t t he l u cra tive c o n tr a c t, b u t in h is p o s itio n s ta te m e n t t o th e E E O C , h e a s s e r te dth a t R a il U nl i m i t ed— t he s i st erc om pany nam ed as c o- def endant

— l os tt he l ucr at ive contract
. W e fi n d t h i s d i scr epa n cy, w i t h ou tm ore, i n suff i ci en tt o castdou bt on t h e le g it im a c yo f D e n -M a r ’s b u s in e s s r e a s o n fo rte r m in a t in gS t in g le y ’s
em pl oym en t
. T h e sam e goes f or t h e t em poralproxi m i t y betw een an y protec t ed act ivi t y an d S t i n gl ey’ s t erm i n ati on ; a l t h ou gh tem poralp roxi m i t y can est abli sh a pr i m a fac i e c as e o f r et al i at i on, i t ca n not

— st andi ng al one— r ebutan em p l oy er’ s l eg iti m a te, n on d i scrim i n a toryre a s o n fo rth e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . S eeN o. 08- 11060

10 St r o ng , 482 F. 3d at808. G iv e n tha tD en - M ar’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en tprovi ded Sti n gl ey w i t h pro pernot i c e t o pr es entsuf f i c i entevi denc e t o pro ve a causa ll i nk, and t hat
s h e fa il e dto d o s o , w e a ff ir m th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o f S t in g le y ’s
r e t a l i a t o r yd i s c h a r g e c l a i m. IV . C ONC L US I ON Al t ho ugh St i ngl e y ap pe ar s t o ul t i m at e l y andunkn o w i ngly l o s e o n a procedu ralm i sst ep r el ated t o t h e presentati on of h er evi den ce r ather t h an on t he po t e nt i al m e r i t s o f he r c l ai m s , a di s t r i c t c o ur t has no o bl i ga t i o n t o pr o vi de
a pro se l i t i ga ntw i t h pa r t i c ul ar i z e d i ns t r uc t i o ns o n t he r e qui r e m e nt s a nd
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. S ee Ma rtin v. Ha rr iso n Co u n ty Ja il , 975 F. 2d1 92 , 1 93 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2)
. T h e p u bl i s he d r ul e s o f pr o c e dur e a f

f o r d pro se l i t i ga nt s s uf

f i c i e ntno t i c e o f

w h at s t e ps t o t ak e i n a s um m ar y j udg m e nt p r o c e e d in g , s e ei d. , a n d th e d ecisi on o f w h eth er to g ive pa rti es th e op p ortu n i ty t o rem edym ater i alpresented f or s u m m ary j u dg m e n ti s w i t h i n t h e di scr et i on o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, see G o rd o n v. W ats on , 622 F. 2d 120, 123 ( 5t h C i r . 1980) (p e r c u ria m ). Acc o r di ngly, w e c o nc l udethatthe c o m pe t e nts um m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce p r e s e n ts n e ith e rd is p u te d m a te r i a lfa c ts n o ra b a s is u p o n w h ic h a re a s o n a b le j u ry co u ld ret u rn a verdic tf or Sti n gl ey. Th e absen ce of evi den ce t o sup port S t i n gl ey’ s c l ai m s enti t l es D en -M a r to sum m ary j u dg m en t
. W e t h eref ore A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. A F F IR M E D
.