Rainey vs. Fannie Mae (5th Cir. 2002)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (August 07, 2002)

Docket number: 01-11202

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/rainey-vs-fannie-mae-18410389
Id. vLex: VLEX-18410389

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Johnnie Shackelford, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deloitte & Touche, Llp, Defendant-Appellee, 190 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999)

Federal Ciurcuit (duplicados) - Cathryn Green, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. Cathryn Green, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, Et Al., Defendants, the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, Defendant-Appellant., US.FEDERAL.ca5 (2002)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Anthony Guillory, Mary Guillory, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Domtar Industries Incorporated, Defendant-Third Party Defendant Intervenor-Appellee, v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Company, Defendant-Third Party Defendant Plaintiff-Appellant, and John Deere Company, Defendant, Deere & Company, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harlo Products Corporation, Defendant-Third Party Defendant Intervenor, Transamerica Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant Intervenor-Appellee. Anthony Guillory, Mary Guillory, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Domtar Industries Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, John Deere Company, Defendant, John Deere Industrial Equipment Company, Defendant-Appellant., 95 F.3d 1320 (5th Cir. 1996)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Fayette Long; Jeanell Reavis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Eastfield College, Defendant-Appellee., 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 1996)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11202 Summary Calendar JEFFREY MARIO RAINEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FANNIE MAE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas (3:00-CV-1245-G) August 6, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jeffrey Ma rio Rainey brought this Title VII action against Fannie Mae, his former employer, alleging that termination of his employment constituted unlawful retaliation for his complaints of racial discriminat ion by his supervisor.

He appeals the district courtÂ’s orders striking his summary judgment evidence and granting Fannie MaeÂ’s motion for summary judgment.

We affirm.

Fannie Mae has moved to strike RaineyÂ’s record excerpt 1. Assuming the plaintiff is able to establish his prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate a legitimate nondiscriminatory purpose for the employment action. 3 If the employer satisfies this burden, the only question on summa ry judgment is whether the evidence of retalia t ion, in its totality, supports an inference of 4 Shackelford v. Del oitte & Touche, LLP , 190 F.3d 398, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). 5 Green v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund , 284 F.3d 642, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). 6 Long v. Eastfield College , 88 F.3d 300, 308 (5th Cir. 1996). 7 See Id . at 305 n.4. retaliation. 4 The adverse employment decision complained of by Rainey is his termination on March 10, 2000. Rainey filed an EEOC complaint on September 14, 1999, and his supervisor knew of the EEOC filing prior to his termination.

Because the filing of an EEOC complaint is a protected activity, 5 these facts are sufficient to establis h a prima facie case.

Rainey cannot show, however, that the adverse employment action would not have occurred "but for" the protected ac tivity. 6 RaineyÂ’s performance evaluations changed from favorable to unfavorable on July 31, 1998Â–over one year before he filed a complaint with the EEOC. RaineyÂ’s earlier complaints to an internal office of Fannie Mae also were made after his negative performance evaluations. Rainey has failed to present summary judgment evidence showing that the filing of the EEOC complain t was the Â“but forÂ” cause of his termination. 7 Accordingly, we affirm the distr ict courtÂ’s grant of summary judgment.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION TO STRIKE GRANTED.

1 Guillory v. Domtar Indus. Inc. , 95 F.3d 1320, 1327 (5th Cir. 1996)