Corazon McDonald v. John McHugh, No. 15-50078 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50078 Document: 00513312180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-50078 Summary Calendar FILED December 17, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CORAZON MCDONALD, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the Department of the United States Army, Defendant–Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CV-54 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Corazon McDonald, pro se, sued her employer through the Secretary of the Army under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50078 Document: 00513312180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 No. 15-50078 appeals an adverse summary judgment. The record establishes, inter alia, that McDonald failed the required background investigation and did not rectify the deficiencies. She had difficulties with time management and attendance and refused to sign a counseling letter. She displayed problems with anger management and was not completing assigned tasks in a timely and accurate manner. Eventually she was placed on administrative leave and was issued a notice of proposed removal from the job, whereupon she retired. After some internal administrative proceedings, McDonald sued, alleging a hostile work environment and discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in a convincing order setting forth its reasons. Regarding a hostile work environment, the court noted that McDonald had produced “no evidence of objectively offensive behavior.” On the issues of discrimination and retaliation, the court noted that McDonald “has produced no evidence of disparate treatment . . . [or] that she engaged in any protected activity prior to the alleged adverse employment actions.” The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 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.
