Ingrid Winslow-Harris v. United States Postal Serv, No. 12-30422 (5th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-30422 Document: 00512031159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED October 24, 2012 No. 12-30422 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk INGRID CYLESTE WINSLOW-HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CV-3588 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ingrid Cyleste Winslow-Harris brought claims of retaliatory discharge and employment discrimination against the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service. The district court granted the Defendant s motion to dismiss the claim of retaliatory discharge and granted the Defendant s motion for summary judgment on the claim of employment discrimination. Winslow-Harris appeals the judgment on both claims. We AFFIRM. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-30422 Document: 00512031159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 No. 12-30422 On her first claim of retaliatory discharge, the district court held that Winslow-Harris had not exhausted her administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Thus, the district court properly dismissed this claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 788 (5th Cir. 2006). Winslow-Harris s second claim of discrimination based on her race is analyzed using the traditional burden-shifting rules of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case that she has suffered discrimination based on race. Frank v. Xerox Corp., 347 F.3d 130, 137 (5th Cir. 2003). If that case is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the questioned employment action. Id. If such a reason is given, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence that the defendant s articulated reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Id. Assuming Winslow-Harris established her prima facie case, the Defendant articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for discharging WinslowHarris during her probationary period of employment. Winslow-Harris filed no opposition to the Defendant s motion for summary judgment. The record contains no evidence that the Defendant s stated reasons are pretextual. A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial and mandates the entry of summary judgment for the moving party. United States ex rel. Farmer v. City of Houston, 523 F.3d 333, 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). The claim based on racial discrimination fails because there was no evidence produced suggesting pretext. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

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.