# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5176 September Term, 2020 1: 17-c v -026 47-TJK Filed O n: April 23 , 20 21 Karen Ba y lor,App ellant
v . Jerom e P owell, Chairman of the Bo ard o f Governors of

the Fed eral Rese rv e S ystem , App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: T ate l, Pillard, a nd W alker, Circuit Ju dges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s A pril 29, 20 20 orde r grant ing sum ma ry

judgm entto the Bo ard o f Governors o f

the Fed eral Rese rv e S ystem (“the B oard ”) be a f

f irmed

. T he district cou rt did noterr in grantin g summ aryjudgm entin favor of the Bo ard on app ellant ’s claims of discrimina tory nonse lection an d ret aliation . T he Boa rd provided le gitimate , no ndiscrimin ato ry reaso ns for no t sele cting app ellant , an d a ppe llant did n ot p rodu ce su f

f icient e v iden ce for a reaso nab le jury to f ind t hattho se rea sons were prete xt an d th at t he Boa rd inste ad inten tiona lly discrimina ted against her o n th e b asis of race. Se e B rady v . Of

f ice of Se rg ean t atArm s, 52 0 F.3 d 4 90, 49 3–9 4 (D.C. Cir. 20 08). Furthe r, ap pellan t ha s no t pro duce d su f f icient e v iden ce for a reaso nab le jury to f ind t hat the Bo ard’s te rmina tion of ap pellan t’s acce ss to its Pe ople Click system w as a m ate rially adverse e mp loymentactio n. See Bu rling ton N. & San ta Fe Ry . Co. v . W hite, 54 8 U.S

. 53, 67 –68 (200 6). App ellantargues t hat , atthis st age in t he proce edin g, she was no t required t o esta blish a prima facie ca se o f reta liation. T o b e su re, o nce the Bo ard a rticulate d its legitimate no nreta liatory reason for te rmina ting app ellant ’s access, the relevant in quiry

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5176 September Term, 2020
turne d o n “th e u ltima te issu e o f reta liation vel no n .” Se e Cruz v . McAlee nan , 93 1 F.3 d 118 6, 1 194 (D.C. Cir. 201 9) (intern al quota tion ma rks om itted ). Howev er, th is court has explained tha t it “can resolve tha t questio n in favor of the em ployer base d e ither u pon the em ployee’s failure t o reb ut its explanat ion o r upo n th e e mp loyee’s failure t o p rov e an elem entof

he r case—h ere t hathe r em ployer too k a m ate rially ad v erse a ction against h er.” T aylor v . So lis, 571 F.3d 13 13, 13 20 n.* (D.C. Cir. 2009 ). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter th e resolut ion o f

an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P . 41 (b); D.C. Cir. Rule 4 1.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2