Charlotte Johnson v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 09-1322 & 09-3966
_____________
CHARLOTTE B. JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
(Pursuant to Rule 43(c), FRAP)
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. Nos. 2-06-cv-04316, 2-07-cv-04741)
District Judge: Hon. Petrese B. Tucker
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
Monday, January 24, 2011
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge,
and STEARNS,* District Judge
(filed: February 4, 2011 )
__________
OPINION
_________
McKEE, Chief Judge.
*
Honorable Richard G. Stearns, District Court Judge, District of Massachusetts, sitting by
designation.
1
Appellant Charlotte B. Johnson appeals the district court’s grant of Appellee
Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ motion for summary judgment on Johnson’s Title VII
retaliation claim and motion for judgment as a matter of law on Johnson’s Title VII
discrimination claim. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
Because we write primarily for the parties, we need not repeat the facts and
procedural history of this case. Moreover, the district court has ably summarized that
background. See Johnson v. Nicholson, 2009 WL 2180352 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2009);
Johnson v. Nicholson, 575 F. Supp. 2d 683 (E.D. Pa. 2008). On appeal, Johnson argues
that the district court erred (1) when it granted the Secretary’s motion for summary
judgment on Johnson’s retaliation claim based on her failure to timely exhaust her
administrative remedies; and (2) when it granted the Secretary’s motion for a judgment as
a matter of law on Johnson’s Title VII discrimination claim based on her failure to
present legally sufficient evidence of discrimination at trial.
In the detailed and thoughtful opinions Judge Tucker filed in this case, she
carefully and clearly explained her reasons for the rulings Johnson is appealing. See
Johnson v. Nicholson, 2009 WL 2180352 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2009); Johnson v. Nicholson,
575 F. Supp. 2d 683 (E.D. Pa. 2008). We can add little to Judge Tucker’s reasoning and
we will therefore affirm those rulings substantially for the reasons set forth in those
opinions.
2