Opinion
23-2968
06-20-2024
Sonia Russell Plaintiff - Appellant v. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General Defendant-Appellee
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 14, 2024
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM
Sonia Russell appeals following the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her pro se employment discrimination action against Louis DeJoy, the United States Postmaster General, alleging that her supervisor harassed her, discriminated against her, and retaliated against her during an incident occurring in January 2017. Upon careful review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. See Fercello v. Cty. of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069, 1077 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Specifically, Russell did not provide evidence that she was "exposed to disadvantageous terms and conditions of employment to which members of the other sex [were] not exposed" in support of her discrimination claim, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv's, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (quotation omitted); Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 144 S.Ct. 967, 974-76 (2024); or that the employer took "materially adverse" actions that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination in support of her retaliation claim, Burlington N. &Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); or that her supervisor's conduct was severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment, see Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith Coll., 62 F.4th 435, 439-40 (8th Cir. 2023). To the extent she attempted to raise claims other than those arising out of the January incident, we conclude that the record indicates she only exhausted claims regarding the January incident, and her other allegations are not sufficiently related to her fully exhausted claims. See Weatherly v. Ford Motor Co., 994 F.3d 940, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2021).
The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8 th Cir. R. 47B.