Velikonja v. Mukasey

D.C. Circuit

Velikonja v. Mukasey

298 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 2008

DocketNo. 07-5346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 F. App'x 8 (Velikonja v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Velikonja v. Mukasey, 298 F. App'x 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment be affirmed.

Appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact with [9]*9respect to the second referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR); no “reasonable jury [could] find that the employer’s assei’ted non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Brady v. Office of the Sergeant of Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.Cir.2008).

With respect to her retaliation claim, appellant also failed to present any evidence establishing a causal connection between the asserted adverse action (the second referral to OPR) and the protected activity. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521, 529-30 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for hearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment be affirmed.

Appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact with [9]*9respect to the second referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR); no “reasonable jury [could] find that the employer’s assei’ted non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Brady v. Office of the Sergeant of Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.Cir.2008).

With respect to her retaliation claim, appellant also failed to present any evidence establishing a causal connection between the asserted adverse action (the second referral to OPR) and the protected activity. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521, 529-30 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for hearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velikonja-v-mukasey-cadc-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack