Court Opinion

ID: 9840458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 18:00:35.669601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.871030
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30422         Document: 00516898037             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-30422                                   FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                         September 18, 2023
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Barbara Johnson-Luster,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:19-CV-2235
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Barbara Johnson-Luster, a former employee of the U.S. Army Corps
   of Engineers, sued after having resigned, raising numerous employment-
   related claims under, inter alia, Title VII and the ADA. She alleged discrim-
   inatory conduct in the form of constructive termination, failing to promote,
   failing to accommodate her disability, unequal terms and conditions of em-
   ployment, retaliation, and harassment based on race, color, sex, and national
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30422        Document: 00516898037          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/18/2023

                                      No. 22-30422

   origin.
             The parties consented, per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to having the matter
   determined by the magistrate judge sitting as the district court. After three
   years of proceedings, the court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary
   judgment. The court carefully explored all of Johnson-Luster’s contentions
   and explained its reasons in a detailed 30-page order, Docket No. 74, entered
   on March 14, 2022.
             Johnson-Luster appeals pro se.
             We have examined the briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and the
   applicable law. There is no reason to try to improve on the district court’s
   comprehensive explication of the issues on appeal. The summary judgment
   is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons advanced by the district court.
   Johnson-Luster’s motion for oral argument is DENIED.

                                              2