F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 14 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ERNEST YOUNG, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-3178
(D.C. No. 00-CV-2544-JWL)
THOMAS E. WHITE, (D. Kan.)
Secretary of the Army, (200 F. Supp. 2d 1259)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , PORFILIO , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff seeks review of the district court’s order granting defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. See Young v. White , 200 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1279
(D. Kan. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s decision de novo, employing the same standard as
did the district court. Amro v. Boeing Co. , 232 F.3d 790, 796 (10th Cir. 2000).
Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue as to any material fact is
in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Plaintiff filed this action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation for
filing an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint. In his complaint, he recited
numerous instances which he contended showed that his supervisor had
discriminated against him or otherwise created a hostile work environment.
He complained generally of actions taken by the Requirements Documentation
Directorate (RDD) director and his immediate supervisor, Col. Roger
Spickelmeir, over the course of several years. These instances included, among
numerous other matters, failure to support some of plaintiff’s suggestions,
bypassing plaintiff and dealing directly with plaintiff’s subordinates (which
plaintiff did not suggest was beyond Col. Spickelmeir’s authority as director),
recommending an internal army investigation, issuing plaintiff a written
performance counseling memorandum, selecting one of plaintiff’s branch chiefs
-2-
for plaintiff, and issuing a mid-point counseling memorandum rating plaintiff as
satisfactory (rather than excellent) in two subcategories. Plaintiff offered these
complaints about his treatment, but he did not allege he was fired or demoted.
To the contrary, he was promoted to division chief, the highest civilian position
within the RDD, where he has worked for the past ten years since retiring from
active military duty.
The district court carefully considered plaintiff’s litany of grievances in
light of the appropriate summary judgment standards and properly concluded that
none of the specific acts listed by plaintiff fall within the category of an adverse
employment action. Young , 200 F. Supp. 2d at 1272 (“Simply put, plaintiff has
presented no evidence that any tangible job consequence accompanied any of
Colonel Spickelmeir’s actions.”). We agree with the district court’s thorough
evaluation and analysis on this point. An adverse employment action “does not
extend to a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities,” but rather
“the employer’s conduct must be materially adverse to the employee’s status.”
Wells v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp. , 325 F.3d 1205, 1212-13 (10th Cir. 2003)
(citations and quotations omitted). “A tangible employment action constitutes
a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failure to
promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision
causing a significant change in benefits.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth ,
-3-
524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any adverse
employment action.
We cannot improve upon the district court’s thorough evaluation and
analysis of plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED for substantially the
reasons stated by the district court.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-4-