Joanne Anderson v. Postmaster General, United States Postal Service

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of*
Kentucky, sitting by designation.
The official case caption misspells JoAnn Anderson’s first name.1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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, UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
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 JoAnn Anderson, a fifty-seven-year-old African-American1
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.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 07-1630
Anderson v. Postmaster General
2
Because a separate opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the court’s judgment,
adopting its analysis.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 07-1630
Anderson v. Postmaster General
3
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 of 3 --