* 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.

R. 47.5.4.

1 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20160

Summary Calendar

CHARLES ST. JOHN

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

SIRIUS SOLUTIONS, LLLP

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Texas, Houston Division

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Charles St. John brought this action against his employer, Sirius

Solutions, LLLP, asserting claims for employment discrimination and retaliation

under the Americans with Disabilities Act.1 The district court granted summary

judgment in favor of Sirius on all claims. St. John appeals only the district

court’s ruling on the retaliation claim. We affirm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20160

2 Turner v. Baylor Richardson Medical Center, 476 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 2007).

3 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).

4 Turner, 476 F.3d at 348.

2

St. John was a consultant employed by Sirius, who, along with his longtime friend and manager,Leara Higginbotham, provided tax consulting services

to NCI Building Systems, Inc. During that project, Higginbotham disclosed to

two NCI employees that St. John was homosexual, had HIV, and was a member

of Alcoholics Anonymous. St. John responded by emailing his disapproval to two

Sirius managers. Soon thereafter, NCI requested Sirius take St. John off the

project, citing missed deadlines, controversial billing, and an incident in which

St. John lost his temper. Sirius complied. St. John contends this adverse

employment action was taken by Sirius in retaliation for his email opposition to

an unlawful employment practice.

To make a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, St. John must

demonstrate that: (1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) an adverse

employment action occurred, and (3) a causal link exists between the protected

activity and the adverse employment action.2

We agree with the district court that St. John did not engage in protected

activity. To engage in protected activity, here “oppos[ing] any act or practice

made unlawful by [the ADA],”3 St. John must show that he had a “reasonable

belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices.”4 St.

John points to two emails that he contends constitute opposition to an unlawful

employment practice under the ADA. The first, to a managing partner at Sirius,

informed the partner that Higginbotham had disclosed “extremely personal

aspects of his life, including health issues” to NCI employees. The second, to a

human resource employee at Sirius, informed the employee that Higginbotham

had disclosed his AA membership and HIV condition to NCI employees. These
No. 08-20160

5

Id. at 348-49.

6 We also agree with the district court that St. John fails to establish a causal link

between the protected conduct, here the emails, and the adverse employment action. NCI

requested that St. John be removed from the project without any knowledge of the emails. 

3

emails do not demonstrate that St. John was opposing what he reasonably

believed was an unlawful practice under the ADA. While the emails mention a

medical condition, the emails do not complain of discrimination based on this

condition. They merely complain of disclosure, which is not protected under the

ADA. It was not reasonable for St. John to believe the emails opposed an

employment practice made unlawful by the ADA, and thus they were not

protected activity.5 St. John fails to make a prima facie showing of unlawful

retaliation.6 Accordingly summary judgment was appropriate. AFFIRMED.