UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-20996
Summary Calendar
MARILYN HERRINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
GULF STATES TOYOTA, INCORPORATED; THE FRIEDKIN CORPORATION,
doing business as Gulf States Distributors,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-94-CV-2268)
June 30, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Herrington sued her employer, Gulf States Distributors, and an
affiliated company, Gulf States Toyota, under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming employment discrimination based
on retaliation, and for intentional infliction of emotional
distress under Texas law. The district court granted summary
judgment for Defendants on all claims. Herrington appeals. We
affirm.
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
To avoid summary judgment Appellant must create an issue of
material fact as to the elements necessary to prove a prima facie
case of employment discrimination based on retaliation. One
element of that claim is that she suffered an adverse employment
decision. The district court held that she had not created a fact
issue on this point and we agree. Her employment was terminated
because of the dissolution of the department in which she worked.
No evidence challenges that fact. The other incidents to which
Appellant points as adverse employment decisions do not, as a
matter of law, qualify as such. See Dolis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777,
781 (5th Cir. 1995).
Since Appellant has created no issue of fact as to her prima
facie case, there is no need to consider the legitimacy of the
reasons advanced by Appellees for the action taken.
The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees on
Appellant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
because no issue of fact was created that the conduct complained of
was extreme or outrageous. Indeed, there is no factual dispute.
Taking the facts as put forward by Appellant, they do not create a
fact issue. Those facts are not outrageous or extreme as defined
by this Court. Johnson v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 965
F.2d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
2