UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 01-60714 Summary Calendar _______________________

KRISTY L. CHRISTEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JESSE H. VASQUEZ, in his official capacity as the Director of the United States Naval Home and DAVID LACY, in his official capacity as the CEO of the Armed Forces Retirement Home,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Case No. 1:00 CV 529 RG _________________________________________________________________ March 19, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Kristy Christen disputes the entry of summary

judgment on her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation

under the Equal Pay Act,

(d), and Title VII, 42

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. U.S.C. § 2000(e) et. seq. Finding no reversible error of fact or

law, we affirm.

Appellant was the only attorney on staff at the Naval

Home in Gulfport, Mississippi. She asserts that her nonsupervisory

position deserved a GS-14 pay grade classification rather than the

GS-13 to which she was ultimately elevated in February 1998. Her

claim derives from a comparison with the pay grades of male

supervisors who held other types of posts, none of them as

attorneys, as the Naval Home. The district court correctly

rejected Christen’s Title VII and EPA claims, holding that her

“comparison” with the non-legal, supervisory employees is

inapposite, because she is not “similarly situated” to the others.

See Peters v. City of Shreveport,

(5th Cir.

1987) (Equal Pay Act); Little v. Republic Refining Co.,

(5th Cir. 1991) (Title VII).

The district court also properly held that Christen’s

retaliation claim failed because she suffered no adverse employment

action. She alleges only that her responsibilities were shifted to

some degree away from her in order to make her post less

significant. Such actions were not sufficiently adverse for

purposes of a retaliation claim.

Finally, Christen contends that she was the victim of

direct discrimination in the form of several gross, unflattering or

belittling comments from co-workers. The district court did not

rule on these allegations. While unfortunate, however, the crude

2 comments are not tied any way to any actionable adverse employment

decision concerning Christen. Damages are not awarded under Title

VII or the Equal Pay Act solely for hurt feelings. The “direct

discrimination” claim suffers from lack of proof of adverse

employment action and causal connection.

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

3