United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30753

Summary Calendar

____________

Nadia Winston, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

United States Postal Service, Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:20-CV-1402

______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Pro se appellant Nadia Winston filed suit against herformer employer, 

Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service 

(“USPS”). USPS moved for summary judgment. The district court granted 

summary judgment in favor of USPS, finding that Winston failed to prove a 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30753 Document: 00516805242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30753

2

prima facie case of retaliatory firing. Because the district court properly 

granted summary judgment in favor of USPS, we affirm. 

Winston began working for USPS in September 2018 as a city carrier 

assistant. As part of her employment, Winston was required to complete a 

mandatory probationary period of 90 workdays or 120 calendar days. Prior to 

the termination of her employment, USPS notified Winston of the 

deficiencies in her job performance through evaluations, two investigative 

interviews, and two letters of warning. In December 2018, Winston emailed 

a letter to human resources complaining of harassment and bullying at the 

workplace. Less than a month later, USPS terminated Winston’s 

employment during her probationary period, citing poor performance and 

safety issues. Winston subsequently filed this lawsuit, bringing one claim 

against USPS for retaliatory firing in violation of Title VII. USPS filed a 

motion for summary judgment. The district court granted USPS’s motion 

and dismissed Winston’s complaint. Winston now appeals the dismissal of 

her claim against USPS.

This court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo. Templet v. 

HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Tango Transp. v. 

Healthcare Fin. Servs. LLC, 322 F.3d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 2003)). Summary 

judgment is only appropriate when, “the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Here, Winston’s Title VII claim is subject to the McDonnell Douglas

burden shifting analysis because she did not present any direct evidence of 

retaliation. See Medlock v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 589 Fed. App’x 707, 709 

(5th Cir. 2014). Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, Winston had to first 

establish a prima facie case of retaliation by establishing that: “(1) she 

engaged in protected activity; (2) experienced an adverse employment 

action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the 

Case: 22-30753 Document: 00516805242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30753

3

adverse employment action.” Id. The district court correctly granted 

summary judgment in favor of USPS because Winston failed to establish a 

prima facie case of retaliation. Specifically, Winston did not show that she 

engaged in a protected activity by filing a complaint with human resources or

establish a causal link between her complaint and USPS’s decision to 

terminate her employment.

First, Winston’s vague human resources complaint was insufficient to 

constitute a protected activity for the purposes of Title VII because it did not 

reference any unlawful employment practice on the part of USPS. Davis v. 

Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 448 Fed. App’x 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2011) (“a vague 

complaint, without any reference to an unlawful employment practice under 

Title VII, does not constitute protected activity.”). Second, Winston failed 

to present any evidence that her supervisors at USPS were aware that she 

had made a complaint with human resources. Univ. of Texas Southwestern 

Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352 (2013) (“Title VII retaliation claims 

require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the 

challenged employment action.”); Chaney v. New Orleans Pub. Facility 

Mgmt., Inc., 179 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1999) (“If an employer is unaware of 

an employee’s protected conduct at the time of the adverse employment 

action, the employer plainly could not have retaliated against the employee 

based on that conduct.”).

Even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Winston, 

her Title VII claim fails. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30753 Document: 00516805242 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2023