* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30427 

Summary Calendar

ANGELIA MCMORRIS

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; BURL CAIN; ROGER MITCHELL,

Chaplain for Louisiana State Penitentiary

Defendants–Appellees

ROGER MITCHELL

Plaintiff–Appellee

v.

ANGELIA MCMORRIS, also known as Angelia Lanus

Defendant–Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CV-495

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 3, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30427

R. 47.5.4.

1 The “effective” date of Mitchell’s resignation was extended until at least February 7,

2003. However, it is undisputed that on November 7, 2002, after Mitchell resigned, he was

escorted from the premises, barred from re-entering, and had no contact with McMorris

thereafter. 

2

On July 19, 2004, Angelia McMorris, a former employee of Louisiana State

Penitentiary (“LSP”), filed suit against LSP, Warden Burl Cain, and Chaplain

Roger Mitchell (“Appellees”) on account of Chaplain Mitchell’s alleged sexual

harassment of her. McMorris asserted causes of action under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Louisiana law. On

February 9, 2007, the district court granted Appellees’ motions for summary

judgment. McMorris now appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment with respect to her Title VII claims.

First, McMorris asserts a Title VII sexual harassment claim against

Appellees. To sustain this claim, Appellant must prove, in part, that “the

employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take

remedial action.” Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512,

523 (5th Cir. 2001). The alleged sexual harassment began in May 2002 and

continued through November 2002. On November 7, 2002, McMorris reported

the alleged sexual harassment to her supervisors. On the same day, the LSP

Investigative Unit immediately initiated an official investigation, culminating

in the voluntary resignation of Chaplain Mitchell.1 LSP’s response clearly

constitutes proper and prompt remedial action, and McMorris’s sexual

harassment claim must fail.

Second, McMorris asserts a Title VII retaliation claim. To prove this

claim, McMorris must show that her “employer’s actions [were] harmful to the

point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or

supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.

White, – U.S. –, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 2409 (2006). Due to the distress caused by the
No. 07-30427

3

events surrounding the alleged sexual harassment, on December 9, 2002,

McMorris submitted and LSP granted an extended leave request with an

expected return date of March 3, 2003. On March 3, 2003, LSP granted another

request by McMorris to extend her leave until April 1, 2003. According to

McMorris, one of her supervisors called her house during this time period and

told her that she had to report back to work immediately or she would be fired.

As a result of this threat, on March 29, 2003, McMorris sent LSP a letter of

resignation, to be effective April 13, 2003. Given that McMorris could have

returned to work three days later on April 1 instead of resigning, and given that

LSP promptly responded to McMorris’s allegations of sexual harassment, twice

granted her requests for leave, and had already accepted Chaplain Mitchell’s

resignation and barred him from the premises, a rational jury could notfind that

the supervisor’s alleged threat was so harmful that it “could well dissuade a

reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id.

AFFIRMED.