Opinion ID: 1033359
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “[Robinson] engaged in a protected activity”

Text: The district court found that Robinson “engaged in a protected activity” when she reported Wilson’s racial epithet to OLOL on September 16, 2009. On appeal, Robinson suggests that, for the purpose of evaluating whether there was a “causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action,” discussed below, she engaged in additional protected activities: filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December 16, 2009, and reporting various grievances to OLOL on January 28, 2010.2 However, Robinson does not maintain, and the record does not support, that she raised these arguments in district court. Indeed, in an exhibit attached to her complaint, under the heading “Prima Facie Case of Discrimination,” Robinson wrote that she “engaged in protected activity under Title VII by reporting the use of racially inappropriate comments in the work place.” (Emphasis added.) Because “this court cannot decide disputed issues of material fact,” and because Robinson did not “set forth specific facts, by affidavits or otherwise, to show there is a genuine issue for trial” as to whether she engaged in these additional protected activities, she waived these arguments on appeal. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1132 (5th Cir. 1992).