Case: 15-50078 Document: 00513312180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-50078 December 17, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CORAZON MCDONALD,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
versus
JOHN MCHUGH,
Secretary of the Department of the United States Army,
Defendant–Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CV-54
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Corazon McDonald, pro se, sued her employer through the Secretary of
the Army under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50078 Document: 00513312180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2015
No. 15-50078
appeals an adverse summary judgment.
The record establishes, inter alia, that McDonald failed the required
background investigation and did not rectify the deficiencies. She had difficul-
ties with time management and attendance and refused to sign a counseling
letter. She displayed problems with anger management and was not complet-
ing assigned tasks in a timely and accurate manner. Eventually she was
placed on administrative leave and was issued a notice of proposed removal
from the job, whereupon she retired.
After some internal administrative proceedings, McDonald sued, alleg-
ing a hostile work environment and discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
and age as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment
in a convincing order setting forth its reasons. Regarding a hostile work envir-
onment, the court noted that McDonald had produced “no evidence of objec-
tively offensive behavior.” On the issues of discrimination and retaliation, the
court noted that McDonald “has produced no evidence of disparate treatment
. . . [or] that she engaged in any protected activity prior to the alleged adverse
employment actions.”
The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given
by the district court.
2