Sonia Russell v. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2968
___________________________
Sonia Russell
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: June 14, 2024
Filed: June 20, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Sonia Russell appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in her pro se employment discrimination action against Louis DeJoy, the
1The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

United States Postmaster General, alleging that her supervisor harassed her,
discriminated against her, and retaliated against her during an incident occurring in
January 2017. Upon careful review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper.
See Fercello v. Cty. of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069, 1077 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of
review). Specifically, Russell did not provide evidence that she was “exposed to
disadvantageous terms and conditions of employment to which members of the other
sex [were] not exposed” in support of her discrimination claim, Oncale v. Sundowner
Offshore Serv’s, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (quotation omitted); Muldrow v. City
of St. Louis, 144 S. Ct. 967, 974-76 (2024); or that the employer took “materially
adverse” actions that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of
discrimination in support of her retaliation claim, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v.
White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); or that her supervisor’s conduct was severe enough
to constitute a hostile work environment, see Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith
Coll., 62 F.4th 435, 439-40 (8th Cir. 2023). To the extent she attempted to raise
claims other than those arising out of the January incident, we conclude that the
record indicates she only exhausted claims regarding the January incident, and her
other allegations are not sufficiently related to her fully exhausted claims. See
Weatherly v. Ford Motor Co., 994 F.3d 940, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2021).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --