Opinion ID: 48278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Acts of Retaliation

Text: 22 Throughout his complaint, affidavit, and briefing, LeMaire makes vague references to other actions taken by Endres in retaliation for LeMaire's protected conduct. ( See LeMaire Compl. ¶ 7(3); LeMaire Aff. ¶ 3 [stating Endres retaliated by assigning LeMaire to numerous unpleasant duties outside of LeMaire's job description and requiring LeMaire to work multiple shifts at different bridge locations]; Doiron Aff. at 5 [stating Endres gave LeMaire all the hard and dirty jobs].) The parties failed to conduct any discovery, so it is unclear to what specific actions LeMaire is referring. 23 LaDOTD did not move for summary judgment on these other acts of retaliation in its motion for summary judgment nor did it reference them on appeal; therefore, LaDOTD cannot be entitled to summary judgment on those issues. 5 Further, because the district court did not issue a written opinion explaining its reasons for granting summary judgment, we do not know if the district court considered these claims and, if it did, why the district court found them lacking. Given the new legal precedent, see Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2414-15, the lack of summary judgment briefing, and the vagueness in the evidence, we reverse this portion of the district court's order and remand for further consideration.