Case Name: Michael NIGRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-12
Citations: 217 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 05-30650
Parties: Michael NIGRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
Michael NIGRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-30650.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2007.
Angela Wilt Cox, Slidell, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Charles H. Hollis, Rachel E. Linzy, The Kullman Firm, Keith M. Pyburn, Jr., Scott David Schneider, Fisher & Phillips, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Nigro sued his former employer for sexual harassment and retaliation. The district court entered summary judgment for the employer.
We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable caselaw, and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate.
Nigro was not discriminated against on account of his sex, which is a required element of a'sexual harassment claim. His retaliation claim fails because he did not mention sexual harassment in his initial complaint to his superiors, so he cannot base a retaliation claim on the fact that he had filed an EEOC charge. Moreover, he has not shown a causal connection between the EEOC activity and his constructive discharge.
The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.