IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 00-20103 Summary Calendar _______________

MAGGIE BRYANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SOUTHWESTERN BELL YELLOW PAGES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-98-CV-3534) _________________________

September 18, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. Maggie Bryant appeals an adverse summary judgment regarding her title VII retaliation PER CURIAM:* claim. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. * In 1992, Bryant, a black female, began Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has working in the Houston office of determined that this opinion should not be Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. (“SWBYP”) as a Telemarketing 47.5.4. Administrator. In 1996, she began work in Advertising Services, where she supported The two CSS positions were filled by two crews of telemarketing representatives. In white female SWBYP employees. Bryant sued February 1998, she sent a letter to Edward SWBYP, alleging race discrimination and re- Whitacre, CEO of SWBYP’s parent company, taliation in violation of title VII, 42 U.S.C. in which she complained of, inter alia, office § 2000e et seq., and age discrimination in football pools and general racial discrimination violation of the ADEA,

et by SWBYP. seq. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SWBYP on all claims, and Bryant In March 1998, two positions for Customer appeals the summary judgment on her Service Specialist (“CSS”) opened in Houston, retaliation claim. Texas. Employees wishing to apply for the positions were required to submit a one-page II. Job Vacancy Request (“JVR”) by March 31, Bryant alleges that, on account of her Feb- 1998. According to company policy and ruary 28 letter complaining of race training, an employee is to fill out a JVR, ob- discrimination, local SWBYP management tain a supervisor’s signature, and then submit knowingly delayed the submission of her JVR the form to Human Resources. Bryant filled such that she would be precluded from out a JVR on March 17 and submitted it to promotion to the CSS position. We review a Manager Steve Herrera for his signature.1 grant of summary judgment de novo, Because Bryant's immediate supervisor, employing the same standards as did the George Jolliff, was on vacation, Herrera district court. See Urbano v. Continental transferred Bryant’s JVR to Jolliff’s immediate Airlines, Inc.,

(5th Cir.), supervisor, Gale Wickham. cert. denied,

(1998).

Wickham signed Bryant’s JVR on We apply the McDonnell Douglas burden- March 17 and immediately gave it to his shifting “three step” to title VII claims of un- secretary,2 who sent it to Jolliff. When Jolliff lawful retaliation. See Long v. Eastfield returned from vacation on March 23, he College,

(5th Cir. 1996); immediately sent Bryant’s JVR back to Bryant Casarez v. Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Co., with a note questioning whether she had

(5th Cir. 1999). The submitted the document to Human Resources. plaintiff must first prove his prima facie case Because Bryant had left for vacation on March by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. 23, however, she did not receive the signed If that is successful, the burden of production JVR until March 30, when she noted the shifts to the defendant to articulate a presence of the JVR and read Jolliff’s note, but legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the did not submit the document to Human challenged action. See id. The burden then Resources until after the March 31 deadline. shifts back to the plaintiff to offer evidence that the proffered reason is a pretext for unlawful retaliation. See id. 1 Bryant asserts that a note accompanied the JVR, but she presented no evidence in that regard. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Bryant must show: (1) that she 2 This secretary was a temporary replacement engaged in activity protected by title VII; (2) for Wickham’s regular secretary.

2 that an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) that a causal connection exists between the participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Casarez,

; Long,

. Bryant’s letter complaining of racial discrimination satisfies the first element, but Bryant fails to demonstrate elements two and three.

Bryant’s charge of retaliation rests on the allegedly retaliatory delay by local management in signing her JVR. Bryant is, however, solely responsible for her untimely submission. Bryant possessed the signed version of the JVR on March 30, accompanied by the note of her supervisor querying whether she had submitted the form to Human Resources, and she offers no explanation for her failure to submit that document either on March 30 or on March 31.

The “delaying tactics” of local management did not deny Bryant the opportunity to apply for the CSS position, and therefore Bryant fails to establish an adverse employment action. Moreover, she presented no evidence that local management even knew of her Feb- ruary 28 letter during the JVR process, and therefore she also failed to establish a causal connection between her letter and the alleged adverse action. Bryant therefore fails to satisfy the first element of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

AFFIRMED.

3