Opinion ID: 782965
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Cabinet's refusal to rehire Akers

Text: 34 Akers's final basis for her retaliation claim is the Cabinet's decision not to rehire her for a different position four months after her resignation. Even assuming that Akers presented a prima facie case of retaliation based upon Alvey's alleged input into the decision, the Cabinet articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to rehire Akers; namely, poor reviews from her coworkers and other supervisors, including Akers's supervisor during the few months that she was employed in the private sector. The Cabinet thus contends that Alvey's alleged retaliatory input was immaterial to its decision not to rehire her. Akers has failed to rebut this contention. Because Akers has not shown that this proferred legitimate reason was pretextual, we agree that the Cabinet's refusal to rehire Akers does not support her retaliation claim. 35 In sum, none of Akers's allegations are sufficient to establish a materially adverse employment action by the Cabinet. The district court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment as to Akers's retaliation claim.