Court Opinion

ID: 9406139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 00:00:20.290038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.289012
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30753        Document: 00516805242             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/29/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30753
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                  June 29, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Nadia Winston,                                                                     Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   United States Postal Service, Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:20-CV-1402
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Pro se appellant Nadia Winston filed suit against her former employer,
   Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service
   (“USPS”). USPS moved for summary judgment. The district court granted
   summary judgment in favor of USPS, finding that Winston failed to prove a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30753     Document: 00516805242           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                    No. 22-30753

   prima facie case of retaliatory firing. Because the district court properly
   granted summary judgment in favor of USPS, we affirm.
          Winston began working for USPS in September 2018 as a city carrier
   assistant. As part of her employment, Winston was required to complete a
   mandatory probationary period of 90 workdays or 120 calendar days. Prior to
   the termination of her employment, USPS notified Winston of the
   deficiencies in her job performance through evaluations, two investigative
   interviews, and two letters of warning. In December 2018, Winston emailed
   a letter to human resources complaining of harassment and bullying at the
   workplace. Less than a month later, USPS terminated Winston’s
   employment during her probationary period, citing poor performance and
   safety issues. Winston subsequently filed this lawsuit, bringing one claim
   against USPS for retaliatory firing in violation of Title VII. USPS filed a
   motion for summary judgment. The district court granted USPS’s motion
   and dismissed Winston’s complaint. Winston now appeals the dismissal of
   her claim against USPS.
          This court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo. Templet v.
   HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Tango Transp. v.
   Healthcare Fin. Servs. LLC, 322 F.3d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 2003)). Summary
   judgment is only appropriate when, “the movant shows that there is no
   genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
          Here, Winston’s Title VII claim is subject to the McDonnell Douglas
   burden shifting analysis because she did not present any direct evidence of
   retaliation. See Medlock v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 589 Fed. App’x 707, 709
   (5th Cir. 2014). Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, Winston had to first
   establish a prima facie case of retaliation by establishing that: “(1) she
   engaged in protected activity; (2) experienced an adverse employment
   action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the

                                             2
Case: 22-30753      Document: 00516805242          Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                    No. 22-30753

   adverse employment action.” Id. The district court correctly granted
   summary judgment in favor of USPS because Winston failed to establish a
   prima facie case of retaliation. Specifically, Winston did not show that she
   engaged in a protected activity by filing a complaint with human resources or
   establish a causal link between her complaint and USPS’s decision to
   terminate her employment.
          First, Winston’s vague human resources complaint was insufficient to
   constitute a protected activity for the purposes of Title VII because it did not
   reference any unlawful employment practice on the part of USPS. Davis v.
   Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 448 Fed. App’x 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2011) (“a vague
   complaint, without any reference to an unlawful employment practice under
   Title VII, does not constitute protected activity.”). Second, Winston failed
   to present any evidence that her supervisors at USPS were aware that she
   had made a complaint with human resources. Univ. of Texas Southwestern
   Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352 (2013) (“Title VII retaliation claims
   require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the
   challenged employment action.”); Chaney v. New Orleans Pub. Facility
   Mgmt., Inc., 179 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1999) (“If an employer is unaware of
   an employee’s protected conduct at the time of the adverse employment
   action, the employer plainly could not have retaliated against the employee
   based on that conduct.”).
          Even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Winston,
   her Title VII claim fails. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              3