Opinion ID: 2718298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Removal of Privacy Curtain

Text: Solomon’s claim that the April 6th order to remove her privacy curtain was retaliatory does not survive summary judgment. The Secretary came forward with a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for that action, pointing to Lawrence’s expressed concern with keeping the entrances to cubicle work spaces free from obstruction. Solomon has no answer to that justification other than the order’s temporal proximity to her informal attempt to resolve uniformity among the circuits that have decided the issue); 9 LEX K. LARSON, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION § 154.10, at p. 154105 & n.25 (2d ed. 2014) (“In addition to the activities specifically protected by the statute, courts have found that requesting reasonable accommodation is a protected activity.”). 26 her complaint with Lawrence’s superior. While Solomon points out that her then-supervisor, Booth, had allowed her to install the curtain, it was Lawrence, not Booth, who ordered the curtain’s removal. Solomon neither contends nor evidences that Lawrence knew Booth had authorized its installation. Nor does Solomon point to any evidence suggesting that Lawrence’s safety justification was pretextual, such as evidence that other employees had similar obstructions in the entrances to their cubicles. Because Solomon lacks “positive evidence beyond mere proximity,” she has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the motive for the ordered removal was safety or retaliation. Woodruff, 482 F.3d at 530.