Opinion
No. 10-5049.
Filed on: December 14, 2010.
BEFORE: GINSBURG, TATEL, and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant asserts that the action his employer took in 2003 requiring him to improve his performance within a specified time period was retaliation for his activities prior to 2003. Title VII's anti-retaliation provision, however, protects only an employee who has "opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice" by Title VII or participated in a Title VII proceeding. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Because appellant has not shown that any of his pre-2003 activities included a claim of discrimination, they do not qualify for protection under Title VII.See Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226, 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.