FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 10, 2009
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
LAKIA HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-5084
(D.C. No. 4:06-CV-00676-CVE-SAJ)
CROSSHAVEN PROPERTIES, INC., (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Lakia Harris, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s opinion
and order granting summary judgment to Crosshaven Properties, Inc., on her
claim for retaliation filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Represented by counsel, Ms. Harris, an African-American, filed a
complaint alleging that she had been terminated in retaliation for complaining
about racial discrimination. 1 Crosshaven Properties moved for summary
judgment, asserting that she had been terminated due to her insubordination. The
district court granted Crosshaven Properties’ motion and determined that there
was no genuine issue of material fact whether Crosshaven Properties’ proffered
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Harris’s employment
was a pretext for discriminatory retaliation.
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.”
Young v. Dillon Cos., 468 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir. 2006). The court properly
granted summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that [Crosshaven Properties] is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “In conducting our analysis, we view all of the
facts in the light most favorable to [Ms. Harris] and draw all reasonable
inferences from the record in [her] favor . . . .” Young, 468 F.3d at 1249. Also,
because she is proceeding pro se on appeal, we construe her appellate arguments
liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
1
Although she also alleged racial discrimination and a racially hostile work
environment, she abandoned those claims during district court proceedings.
-2-
Ms. Harris first argues that the district court applied an unjust standard
because her burden of proof was weightier than that of Crosshaven Properties. As
the court noted, the law places the ultimate burden of proving retaliation on
Ms. Harris. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
Thus, the court did not apply an unjust standard.
Also, Ms. Harris argues that Crosshaven Properties failed to provide any
proof that she was insubordinate or that its actions were not a pretext for
retaliation. She also argues that the district court did not view the evidence in the
light most favorable to her. After reviewing the record and relevant case law, we
conclude that the district court did view the evidence in the light most favorable
to Ms. Harris and correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Crosshaven
Properties. We affirm the court’s decision for substantially the same reasons set
forth by the district court in its Opinion and Order of April 28, 2008. R., Vol. I,
Doc. 38.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-