Anderson v. Postmaster Gen U.S., No. 07-1630 (6th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 08a0598n.06 Filed: October 2, 2008 No. 07-1630 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JOANNE ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Before: MOORE, COOK, Circuit Judges; and HOOD, District Judge.* COOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff JoAnn1 Anderson, a fifty-seven-year-old African-American female, filed this Title VII suit against her employer, defendant John Potter, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service (the Postal Service ). Anderson alleges that the Postal Service discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of race, sex, age, and prior Equal Employment Opportunity ( EEO ) complaints, and subjected her to a hostile work environment. In a thorough opinion addressing Anderson s numerous factual contentions, the district court concluded that Anderson failed to articulate a prima facie case for any of her claims, and granted summary judgment for the Postal Service. Having reviewed the briefs and record, we reach the same conclusion. * The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. 1 The official case caption misspells JoAnn Anderson s first name. No. 07-1630 Anderson v. Postmaster General Because a separate opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the court s judgment, adopting its analysis. 2 No. 07-1630 Anderson v. Postmaster General KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. I concur in the judgment, on the ground that summary judgment is appropriate because Anderson has failed to show a genuine issue that the defendant s asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. Moreover, Anderson has failed to allege sufficient facts to show a genuine issue regarding the existence of an actionable hostile-work-environment claim. 3
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.
