Case: 22-30753 Document: 00516805242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30753
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 29, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Nadia Winston, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
United States Postal Service, Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CV-1402
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Pro se appellant Nadia Winston filed suit against her former employer,
Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service
(“USPS”). USPS moved for summary judgment. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of USPS, finding that Winston failed to prove a
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30753 Document: 00516805242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30753
prima facie case of retaliatory firing. Because the district court properly
granted summary judgment in favor of USPS, we affirm.
Winston began working for USPS in September 2018 as a city carrier
assistant. As part of her employment, Winston was required to complete a
mandatory probationary period of 90 workdays or 120 calendar days. Prior to
the termination of her employment, USPS notified Winston of the
deficiencies in her job performance through evaluations, two investigative
interviews, and two letters of warning. In December 2018, Winston emailed
a letter to human resources complaining of harassment and bullying at the
workplace. Less than a month later, USPS terminated Winston’s
employment during her probationary period, citing poor performance and
safety issues. Winston subsequently filed this lawsuit, bringing one claim
against USPS for retaliatory firing in violation of Title VII. USPS filed a
motion for summary judgment. The district court granted USPS’s motion
and dismissed Winston’s complaint. Winston now appeals the dismissal of
her claim against USPS.
This court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo. Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Tango Transp. v.
Healthcare Fin. Servs. LLC, 322 F.3d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 2003)). Summary
judgment is only appropriate when, “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Here, Winston’s Title VII claim is subject to the McDonnell Douglas
burden shifting analysis because she did not present any direct evidence of
retaliation. See Medlock v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 589 Fed. App’x 707, 709
(5th Cir. 2014). Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, Winston had to first
establish a prima facie case of retaliation by establishing that: “(1) she
engaged in protected activity; (2) experienced an adverse employment
action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the
2
Case: 22-30753 Document: 00516805242 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30753
adverse employment action.” Id. The district court correctly granted
summary judgment in favor of USPS because Winston failed to establish a
prima facie case of retaliation. Specifically, Winston did not show that she
engaged in a protected activity by filing a complaint with human resources or
establish a causal link between her complaint and USPS’s decision to
terminate her employment.
First, Winston’s vague human resources complaint was insufficient to
constitute a protected activity for the purposes of Title VII because it did not
reference any unlawful employment practice on the part of USPS. Davis v.
Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 448 Fed. App’x 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2011) (“a vague
complaint, without any reference to an unlawful employment practice under
Title VII, does not constitute protected activity.”). Second, Winston failed
to present any evidence that her supervisors at USPS were aware that she
had made a complaint with human resources. Univ. of Texas Southwestern
Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352 (2013) (“Title VII retaliation claims
require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the
challenged employment action.”); Chaney v. New Orleans Pub. Facility
Mgmt., Inc., 179 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1999) (“If an employer is unaware of
an employee’s protected conduct at the time of the adverse employment
action, the employer plainly could not have retaliated against the employee
based on that conduct.”).
Even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Winston,
her Title VII claim fails. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3