Page:Lindsley v. TRT Holdings (20-10263) (2021) Opinion.pdf/14

 See generally Dupont-Lauren v. Schneider (USA), Inc., 994 F. Supp. 802, 824 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (collecting Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuit cases holding that “satisfactory but diminished evaluations do not constitute adverse employment actions giving rise to actionable retaliation claims.”).

Lindsley also alleges that, when she returned, all of her computer files were gone, and the IT department told her that they were unrecoverable. After she left Omni, by contrast, her successor was able to recover some of those files by speaking with Gilbert. But Lindsley puts forth no evidence that the deletion of the computer files was in any way motivated by retaliation.

Finally, Lindsley argues that she was constructively discharged. To establish constructive discharge, she must “offer evidence that the employer made the employee’s working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.” Barrow v. New Orleans S.S. Ass’n, 10 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 1994). The evidence Lindsley presents in support of her constructive discharge argument does not differ from the evidence she presents in support of her claim of an adverse employment action. Nor does our legal conclusion. Just as the evidence is insufficient to establish that a reasonable employee would be dissuaded from filing an EEOC complaint, it is likewise insufficient to show that a reasonable employee would feel “compelled to resign.” Id.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Omni as to Lindsley’s retaliation claims.

It is undisputed that Lindsley was paid less than the three previous men who held her exact same position. That is enough to establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination. So we disagree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment for that reason. But we agree with the district court that Lindsley’s evidence is insufficient to create a prima facie case as to her