Jackson v. Geren, No. 07-51389 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-51389 Summary Calendar September 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk MARTHA H. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETE GEREN, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 6:06-CV-242 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Martha Jackson appeals a summary judgment entered on her claim of retaliation and on discrimination on account of race, sex, age, and religion. The * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-51389 district court entered a lengthy and convincing Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining why Jackson s suit has no merit. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by that court. As the district court explained, plaintiff alleges fourteen factually [discrete] occasions where she claims her civil rights were violated. Some of those events, as the district court explained, do not constitute adverse employment actions. One incidentSSa twelve-day suspensionSSis an adverse action but, as the district court reasoned, there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. One incident deserves special mention. Jackson asserts that a lieutenant colonel uttered an extremely offensive and unacceptable racial epithet in reference to her. Although that conduct was reprehensible, Jackson has presented no evidence that the lieutenant colonel in question had authority over the employment decisions that Jackson questions or that the remark was in any way related to those employment actions. In sum, Jackson has made no showing that any of the myriad actions complained of resulted from discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The district court has shown why summary judgment is amply justified. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
