United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 4, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30753
Summary Calendar
LETITIA W. RABY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WESTSIDE TRANSIT, A/K/A ATC/VANCOM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CV-1000
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Letitia Raby, a former employee of Westside Transit, appeals
from the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII claims after
a motion for summary judgment. We review de novo under the same
standards applied by the district court. City of Shoreacres v.
Waterworth, 420 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). Petitioner alleged
four claims of discrimination based on sex and race: 1) that she
was paid unequal wages; 2) that she was denied a promotion; 3) that
she was subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment;
and 4) that she was discharged.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-30753
-2-
To make a prima facie showing of disparate treatment through
the payment of unequal wages, the plaintiff must show that she was
paid less than another employee who was not a member of the
protected class for work requiring substantially the same
responsibility. Uviedo v. Steves Sash & Door Co., 738 F.2d 1425,
1431 (5th Cir. 1984). Petitioner points only to a male employee
with a higher salary who was an “operations supervisor” and who was
laid off three years before she became an “assistant general
manager.” Petitioner has not shown that the positions have similar
responsibilities or that another employee was paid more during the
period she held the assistant general manager position.
To make a prima facie case of discrimination under a failure
to promote claim, the plaintiff must show that she was qualified
for the position she sought. Blow v. City of San Antonio, 236 F.3d
293, 296 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, petitioner pointed to an open
position as general manager and alleges that Westside discriminated
against her by failing to make her aware of the opportunity.
However, the position required five years of experience in the
transit industry, while the plaintiff possessed only three. She was
thus not qualified for the position at the time it was available.
To make a prima facie case that she was subjected to a hostile
work environment, the plaintiff must show that she was the victim
of uninvited sexual or racial harassment and that the harassment
was based on sex or race. Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 626
(5th Cir. 2000). While petitioner has alleged that abusive conduct
No. 06-30753
-3-
from other employees was directed at her, the conduct alleged does
not have any apparent connection to her race or gender.
To make a prima facie showing that her firing was retaliatory,
the plaintiff must show that she engaged in an activity protected
by Title VII. Grimes v. Texas Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1996). An employee has
engaged in activity protected by Title VII if she has: 1) opposed
any practice made an unlawful employment practice by Title VII, or
2) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII.
Id. The petitioner has not alleged that she engaged in any
protected activity.
Because the petitioner has not made the required showings as
to any of her claims, the decision of the district court to grant
summary judgment is AFFIRMED.