Audrey Swann, Appellant v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Appellee
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the supplement thereto, the opposition, 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 has not produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the appellee's asserted reason for investigating her employment application and terminating her was pretextual and that the appellee intentionally retaliated against her. See Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
The court declines to consider appellant's arguments, raised for the first time on appeal, that the investigation reviewing her employment application was impermissibly “stale,” and that review of her application was a new policy that violated the Human Resources Act because it did not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking. See United States v. Stover, 329 F.3d 859, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (arguments not presented to the district court “cannot be considered for the first time on appeal”).
Appellant's list of arguments at the end of her opposition is not sufficiently developed for this court's consideration. See Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 200 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work ․”).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.