NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1544 ___________ SHERRY MOORE, Appellant v. SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-06614) District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 1, 2017 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 4, 2017) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Plaintiff Sherry Moore, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Moore alleges race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s decision. I. Moore is an African-American woman. During the period relevant to this lawsuit, she served as an Immigration Enforcement Agent for DHS in Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Marlton, New Jersey. Moore filed a complaint of discrimination against two of her supervisors, Adam Garcia and Christopher Croteau, in 2004. She claims that she was subjected to discrimination and retaliation after she did so. Moore’s claims are based on four work assignments she received; her account of them follows. First, in either March or May 2006, Croteau directed Moore and another agent to release a detainee after hours to the detainee’s home in Camden, New Jersey. Moore and the other agent drove to the home in a white van with a government license plate. Both agents were armed. When they arrived, a number of people were present outside of the home who were angry because of a raid conducted earlier that day in which the detainee had been arrested. The group yelled at Moore and the other agent while they were releasing the detainee. The home was in an area known for high gang, drug, and criminal activity. No law enforcement officers were notified that they were coming or called in for backup, as was the usual policy. Both Moore and the other agent described the situation as dangerous given the earlier arrest and the high-crime area where the detainee lived. No one came physically close to either agent, however, and the agents left after the 2 detainee was released. Croteau went to the former detainee’s home the following day with two other agents to complete her release paperwork. Moore believes this assignment was discriminatory because “Croteau made the conscious decision to send two female African-American [agents] alone into a city that is well-known for violence.” Supp. App’x at SA309. Croteau avers that he made a decision to return the detainee to her home that evening because she was breastfeeding a six or seven month old baby and had not been home in twelve hours. Croteau described her as distraught and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals