Calabrace v. Potter, No. 06-5935 (6th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0298n.06 Filed: April 30, 2007 No. 06-5935 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BETTY A. CALABRACE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, V. JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee. Before: ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE MARTIN and MERRITT, Circuit Judges; FORESTER, Senior District Judge.* KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Betty A. Calabrace, filed this action against the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service alleging that she was subjected to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity causing her to resign from her employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e et seq. Upon the completion of discovery, the defendant filed his motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Calabrace s complaint failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation. The district court granted * The Honorable Karl S. Forester, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. 1 the defendant s motion for summary judgment, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. Calabrace has appealed the portion of the district court s judgment in favor of the defendant on her claim for retaliation under Title VII. After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we agree with the district court s grant of summary judgment to the defendant. Because the reasoning that supports the judgment for the defendant on Calabrace s claim of retaliation has been clearly articulated by the district court in a thorough and comprehensive opinion, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unduly duplicative. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, is AFFIRMED on the basis of the reasoning detailed in his Opinion and Order dated June 8, 2006. 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.
