Michael Hill v. Denis McDonough, Secretary United States Department of Veterans Affairs

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1797
___________________________
Michael Hill
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Denis McDonough, Secretary United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 10, 2024
Filed: June 10, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Michael Hill sued the Department of Veterans Affairs under Title VII for
retaliation and age, disability, sex, and race discrimination. The district court1
granted summary judgment to the VA. We affirm.
The court properly granted summary judgment on Hill’s age and disability
discrimination claims because neither is cognizable under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-16(a) (prohibiting “discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin” in federal employment); Enowmbitang v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 148
F.3d 970, 973 (8th Cir. 1998) (permitting sua sponte grant of summary judgment
without prior notice “if the losing party has failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted” (citation omitted)). It then granted summary judgment on the
remaining claims because Hill did not establish a prima facie case of hostile work
environment, constructive discharge, disparate treatment, or retaliation. Reviewing
de novo, we agree. Yang v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., 79 F.4th 949, 964 (8th Cir. 2023).
Hill’s allegations that his supervisors called him “boy” and subjected him to
other offensive slights do not illustrate conduct “so severe or pervasive” as to alter
the terms, conditions, or privileges of his employment. Bainbridge v. Loffredo
Gardens, Inc., 378 F.3d 756, 759 (8th Cir. 2004) (“A hostile work environment exists
when the workplace is dominated by racial slurs, but not when the offensive conduct
consists of offhand comments and isolated incidents.”). So his hostile work
environment claim collapses, and his constructive discharge claim, premised on the
same allegations, falls along with it. O’Brien v. Dep’t of Agric., 532 F.3d 805, 811
(8th Cir. 2008). And we see no error in the district court’s disposition of his disparate
treatment and retaliation claims. Hill has failed to show a single employment action,
material or otherwise, that changed the terms, conditions, or privileges of his job for
the worse. See, e.g., Henthorn v. Capitol Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1028 (8th
Cir. 2004) (“A negative employment review . . . is actionable only if the employer
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
subsequently uses the evaluation as a basis to alter in a detrimental way the terms or
conditions of the recipient’s employment.”).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --