slamming her office door, and banging his fists on her desk.” But Lindsley’s own statements establish that Keenen yelled at her not because of her EEOC charge, but in response to her “concerns with the ambassador meeting and [Keenan] having conversations with [her] team, and then giving them directions with out [sic] [her] present.” And we have previously observed that “criticism, such as [a supervisor’s] oral threats or abusive remarks, does not rise to the level of an adverse employment action.” Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150, 158 (5th Cir. 2000).
The district court also held that Lindsley failed to establish adverse employment action in response to her requesting and taking FMLA leave. We agree with this conclusion, too.
According to Lindsley, when she requested information regarding FMLA leave, Susan Gilbert, the head of human resources for Omni Corpus Christi, “threatened [her] and intentionally misinformed [her] that if she took FMLA leave, she would not have a job when she returned, [and] she would have to forfeit all of the paid time off she accrued.” But Lindsley does not dispute that Gilbert quickly corrected her mistake. As the district court concluded: “Lindsley provides no evidence, aside from her subjective belief, that Gilbert was threatening her or creating a hostile work environment.” And “[w]e have consistently held that an employee’s subjective belief of discrimination, however genuine, cannot be the basis of judicial relief.” EEOC v. La. Off. of Cmty. Servs., 47 F.3d 1438, 1448 (5th Cir. 1995).
When Lindsley returned, she alleges Keenan gave her a “drastically lowered” performance evaluation, “told [her] directly that [she] was no longer wanted,” and that “[she] was causing issues.” But the performance review Lindsley received was for her performance in 2015—before her 2016 leave under the FMLA. And the evaluation said that she “met expectations” despite the fact “2015 was an extremely difficult year for the overall hotel.”
13
