Zanders v. Potter , 223 F. App'x 470 ( 2007 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0322n.06
Filed: May 8, 2007
06-2066
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DARNELL ZANDERS, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
United States Postal Service, )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
Before: DAUGHTREY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Darnell Zanders, appeals from the district court’s grant
of summary judgment to the defendant, John Potter, the Postmaster General of the United
States Postal Service, in this suit brought pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17. Zanders, an African-American male,
alleged that he was the victim of racial discrimination because his supervisor, John Talick,
placed a letter of warning in Zanders’s file as a result of acts and omissions that the plaintiff
asserts were also committed by a white male who did not receive similar discipline from
his superiors.
*
The Hon. W illiam W Schwarzer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California,
sitting by designation.
06-2066
Zanders v. Potter
The district court concluded that because the letter of warning did not result in a loss
of position, salary, benefits, or prestige, it could not be considered an adverse employment
action of the type necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In fact, the
record in this case indicates that Zanders has continued to receive salary increases, “spot”
awards, and excellent evaluations even after the issuance of the letter of warning.
Alternatively, the district court determined that “even if Plaintiff were able to
demonstrate an adverse employment action, Defendant would still be entitled to summary
judgment because Plaintiff has not shown that he ‘was treated differently than similarly
situated individuals outside of his protected class.’” In reaching that conclusion, the district
judge noted that, although Zanders and the white male filled the same supervisory position,
the white male did so only on an interim basis while the plaintiff was on another assignment
and that “the expectations for an employee in a non-supervisory role who temporarily
assumes a supervisory role would be lower, or at least different, than the expectations for
a permanent manager.”
The district court in this case has ably summarized the relevant evidence and has
correctly identified the applicable law. Given that treatment of the plaintiff’s claims, the
issuance of a full, written opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no
precedential purpose. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the
reasoning set forth in that court’s opinion and order filed on July 21, 2006.
-2-