Brett Steele, Appellant v. James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Appellee
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 in part. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the government on appellant's retaliation claim. Appellant did not show that he suffered a materially adverse action because he brought or threatened to bring a discrimination claim. See Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Summary judgment was also warranted on the hostile work environment claim, because appellant did not “show that his employer subjected him to ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Id. at 1201 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied in part, with respect to appellant's discrimination claim. The merits of the parties' positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action on this claim. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 resolution of the remainder of the appeal.