ROLAND JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN E. POTTER , POSTMASTER GENERAL,UNITED STAT ES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee., (2nd Cir. 2005)

Docket Number: 05-1231

Linked as:

Text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER

AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY

OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY

OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR

IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 15th day of December, two thousand and five.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN

JOSÃ‰ A. CABRANES

PETER W. HALL

Circuit Judges

x

ROLAND JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 05-1231

JOHN E. POTTER , POSTMASTER GENERAL,

UNITED STAT ES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

x

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTINA A. AGOLA, Rochester, NY.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: LYNN S. EDELMAN, Assistant United States

Attorney (Kathleen M. Mehltretter, Acting

United States Attorney for the Western District

of New York, on the brief), United States

Attorney's Office for the Western District of

New York, Buffalo, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Roland Johnson appeals from a February 28, 2005 Order of the District Court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant Postmaster on January 15, 2002 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that he suffered retaliation on the basis of his prior assertions of his civil rights under Title VII.

The District Court correctly found that plaintiff did not state a prima facie case of an "adverse employment action," which is necessary to any claim of retaliation filed under Title VII.

See Galabya v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 2000) ("To be materially adverse a change in working conditions must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.") (internal quotation marks omitted). No disputed material facts prevented a proper finding that plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action.

Substantially for the reasons stated in the careful Order of the District Court, the By 3

judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT, Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court