The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. In his opinion dated May 10, 2005, the judge rejected the retaliation claim for reasons with which we agree. Esparza was terminated because of her falsification of the record and was unrelated to her simultaneous complaint of objectionable sexual conduct.

2. We also agree with the judge’s rejection of the sexual harassment claim in his opinion dated June 11, 2005. However distasteful and objectionable were these events for which she complains, there is no evidence that she perceived them to interfere with her work performance and create an abusive working environment. See Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2405, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); LaDay v. Catalyst Technology, Inc., 302 F.3d 474, 482 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.