Anderson v. USPS

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit In the March 27, 2003 United States Court of AppealsCharles R. Fulbruge III Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _______________ m 02-30915 Summary Calendar _______________ ANTOINETTE M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana m 00-CV-1118-S _________________________ Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. Antoinette Anderson sued her former em- ployer, the United States Postal Service, for PER CURIAM:* retaliation under title VII and for failure to * * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has (...continued) determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum- (continued...) stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. provide reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act. In its comprehensive Or- der and Reasons, entered August 28, 2002, the district court granted summary judgment. The court concluded that “[t]he result of Anderson’s fitness-for-duty exam indicate [sic] that her condition is permanent and she cannot meet the requirements for a mailhandler posi- tion.” This sufficiently resolves the issue of accommodation. Regarding retaliation, the court noted that “Anderson does not address the nondiscrim- inatory reason which the Postmaster offered to explain her termination. She does not dispute that she had no seniority to select a job on a specific unit and that she was subject to as- signment as needed, usually to the less desir- able positions.” Accordingly, as the court rea- soned, “the record conclusively reveals that the Postmaster had a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Anderson’s employment, and Anderson has not produced evidence that her termination would not have occurred ‘but for’ her filing EEOC complaints.” The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 2