Case: 14-30312 Document: 00512866967 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-30312 United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
DONALD MITCHELL, December 11, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff-Appellant Clerk
v.
WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:10-CV-1240
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Mitchell appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment
in favor of Weyerhaeuser NR Company (“Weyerhaeuser”) on Mitchell’s Title
VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claims. Having carefully considered the
pertinent portions of the record in light of the parties’ briefs and oral
arguments utilizing de novo review, we conclude that Mitchell has not
demonstrated that the district court reversibly erred in granting summary
judgment:
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-30312 Document: 00512866967 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2014
No. 14-30312
1. Mitchell did not engage in activity protected by Title VII or § 1981
because the conduct he complained of in an anonymous letter and
elsewhere—while inappropriate and offensive—could not reasonably
be considered actionable discrimination or conduct that created a
hostile work environment. See Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med.
Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment
when complaints concerned comments that, while offensive, “could
not have reasonably [been] believed [to be an] unlawful employment
practice in and of themselves”); see also Stewart v. Miss. Transp.
Comm’n, 586 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2009) (Title VII is not a “general
civility code” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Mitchell engaged in
protected activity, there is no dispute of material fact regarding
whether there is a causal link between the protected activity and the
adverse act because there is no evidence that Weyerhaeuser
management knew Mitchell wrote the anonymous letter. 1 See Willis
v. Cleco Corp., 749 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that a prima
facie case of retaliation under Title VII and § 1981 requires showing
that, inter alia, the plaintiff engaged in protected activity and there
is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action).
AFFIRMED. 2
1 We “may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any grounds supported by the
record and presented to the court below.” Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th
Cir. 2008). Mitchell’s other claimed acts of protected activity also fail to support a reversal
either because they were not protected activity (general complaints about how he was
treated) or because there is insufficient competent evidence of a causal link.
2 Given our holding, we do not reach the issue addressed below and argued by the
parties on appeal of whether the “but-for” causation standard mandated by University of
2
Case: 14-30312 Document: 00512866967 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2014
Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) for Title VII claims
applies to § 1981 retaliation claims.