Michael Riley v. Janet Napolitano
537 F. App'x 391
5th Cir.2013Background
- Riley was hired by FEMA as an Equal Rights Officer in January 2006.
- On July 11, 2007, Riley sent an email to his supervisor and the director criticizing his status without alleging protected status.
- Montgomery, with Campbell's consent, terminated Riley for unauthorized use of a Government-issued travel charge card exceeding $7,000; termination effective August 1, 2007.
- Riley filed a discrimination complaint with FEMA's Office of Equal Rights alleging retaliatory discharge, then filed suit against Napolitano on January 27, 2011.
- The district court granted Napolitano's summary judgment on November 15, 2012, denied Riley's motion for a new trial on December 17, 2012, and Riley appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riley engaged in protected activity under Title VII | Riley argues the July 11, 2007 email constituted protected activity. | Napolitano and the district court held the email did not constitute protected activity. | No protected activity established. |
| Whether Riley presented a prima facie retaliation claim | Riley contends the protected activity nexus supports a prima facie retaliation claim. | Without protected activity, no prima facie case. | Prima facie retaliation not established. |
| Whether pretext exists to defeat summary judgment | Riley argues the termination reason is pretext for discrimination. | Without prima facie case, pretext analysis unnecessary. | Judge's inquiry ends with lack of prima facie claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 144 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1998) (defines protected activity under Title VII (opposition or participation))
- Kelley v. Price-Macemon, Inc., 992 F.2d 1408 (5th Cir. 1993) (sets standard for evaluating summary judgment, favorable to non-movant's inferences)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (requires avoiding credibility determinations at summary judgment; evidence viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
- Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2011) (retaliation prima facie framework; burden-shifting guidance)