FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT OCT 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T
N o. 06- 1257 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0191 3- CV -R W S- 1 MARTHA L. HEAD , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us HOME DEPOT, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia (O ct ob er 18, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: MarthaA
. H ea d, af

orm er e m plo y ee of H om e D ep ot, I nc . , br ough t this
ac tio n a ga ins t H om e D ep ot unde r T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4, 42He a d w a s a lso the Spe c ia l Se rv ic e s “ Di str ic t Pe e r” fo r a ll o f t he Ho me De po t st or e s in 1 the Di str ic t. I

n th is r ole , s he tr a ine d e mpl oye e s at th os e sto re s a nd wi th t he Di str ic t L os s Prevention Mana g er a

udited those stores to ensure that their employees c omplied with the Special Servic e policies a nd proce dures. Hea d’s complaint also asse rted state la w claims for

defa mation and intentional 2 infliction of emotional distress. The district cour t gr anted Home Depot summary judgme nt on these c laims (in the same orde r in which it g rante d Home De pot summary judgme nt on Head’ s Title VI Iand § 1981 claims), and H ead doe s not challeng e that disposition in t his appea l. Th e c ourt

a do pte d th e ma g istrate jud g e ’s R & R a ft e r c on sid e ri ngand re je c tin ga s 3 meritless Hea d’s objections to the R & R. 2 U. S. C. § 200 0e et

se q. , and 4 2 U
. S. C. § 19 81. H ea d c la im ed that H om e D ep ot unlawfully

term inated her em

ploym ent, a s m anager of S pecial Ser vices De partm ent of Hom e D epot’ s McD onou gh, G eorgia store, on account of her rac e, 1 Af rican-A m erican, and in retaliation for opposin g allegedly unlawful conduct
en ga ge d inby

H om e D ep ot. S he a lso c la im ed that, dur ing he r em

plo ym en t, she
wa s subjected to a r acially hostil e w ork environm ent. H om e D epot denied 2 lia bil ity , and f

oll ow ing c onsi de ra

ble dis co ve ry , m ove d th e dis tr ic t c ourt f or
sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he c ourt, a dopt ing a s it s op ini on the Re port and Re co m m en da tio n ( “ R & R” ) of

the m ag istrate j udge , Re co rd , V ol. 2 at T ab 83, gr an te d it s m oti on. I d. a t T ab 85. H ea d no wappe al s. 3 Inc onsi de ri ng H ea d’ s di sc ri m inator y dis ch ar ge c la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt, usi ng the Mc D onne ll D ougl as f ram ew ork, a ssum ed

that H ea d ha d e sta

bli she d a pr im a fa ci e ca se , c onc lud ed that H om e D ep ot h ad

c om e fo rw ar d w ithale git im at e3

non- dis cr im inator

y r ea son fo r fi ri ng h er , and, the n, tur ne d to the que sti on o f whether she had adduced eviden ce that w ouldperm it a trier of fac t to find that such reason was a

pretext for discrim ination
. He ad contended that th e re cord
co nta ine d e vid en ce of

pr et ex t i n H om e D ep ot’ s f ai lur e to d isc ipl ine sim ilarl y sit ua te d w hit e pe rs ons, i. e. , “ co m parator s, ” in the sam e w ay it dis ci pli ne d he r. T he court found th at the persons Head pointed to were not com parators, and after analy zing and rej ecting as m eritless He ad’ s other claim s of pretext, concluded th at she ha d f ai le d to c re at e a ca se f

or the j ur y on the pr et ex t i ssu e. I d. , a t T ab 83, 44- 5 7 . We a g re e, an dth er ef o re af fi rm th e c o u rt ’s s u m

m ary d i s p o s i t i o n o f H ea d ’s d i s c r i mi n a t o ry d i s c h ar g e c l a i m. T he c ourt de nie d H ea d’ s r et al ia tio n c la im on the gr ound s th at

she f ai le d to
es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al ia tio n and, a lte rn at ive ly , that by f ai lin g “ to showany w eakne ss, im

pla usi bil iti es , inc onsi ste nc ie s, inc ohe re nc ie s, or contradictions in [Hom e D epot’ s] stated reasons for her term ination , she .
. . f ailed to e sta bli sh p re te xt. ” I d. a t T ab 85, 64. W e fi nd n o e rr or in the c ourt’ s ana ly sis of He ad’ s retaliation claim

and therefore aff

irm the court’ s denial thereof. Inr ej ec tin g H ea d’ s ho sti le w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im , the c our t c ar ef ull y
co nsi de re d e ac h e ve nt H ea d c ite d insup port of he r cl ai m . I n th e en d, it

f ound

“ that the condu ct at issue f[e ll] far below the level of sever e and pervasive conduct4

required for a

viable hosti le w ork environm ent claim .” W e agre e, and therefore
a f f i rm th e c o u rt ’s d e n i a l o f

th i s c l a i m. AFFIR MED.