Laura Cain v. Bd. of Trustees of the University of

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 7, 2006
No. 05-16848
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 03-02733 CV-B-S,

LAURA CAIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, VAXIN,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________

(December 7, 2006)

Before ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,* Judge.

_______________
*Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the district

court is due to be affirmed. For the reasons discussed at oral argument, the alleged

hostile environment did not rise to the necessary level of severity or pervasiveness,1

and even if it did, plaintiff cannot surmount the Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,

118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998), defense. With respect to the promotion of Dr. Siegel,

plaintiff was not qualified. Moreover, no reasonable jury could find pretext in light

of the legitimate business reason. With respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, no

reasonable jury could find retaliation in light of the fact that plaintiff was not

qualified for the position to which Dr. Siegel was promoted. We note that

appellant’s initial brief fails to preserve any challenge to any later denial of a

promotion, either as a substantive challenge or as an alleged action taken in

retaliation for protected conduct.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.2

1
Any claim with respect to Dr. Reddy is time-barred.
2
In light of our disposition, we need not address plaintiff’s argument about the joint
employer theory. Appellee Vaxin’s motion for double costs and attorney fees on appeal is
Denied.

2