Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary reversal, and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the appellant's claims regarding appellee's non-promotion decisions be remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (Jan. 29, 2009). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted with respect to appellant's remaining claims. As to these claims, the merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc, 819 F.2d at 297.
With respect to his claims alleging discrimination based on allegations of excessive telephone use, and the investigation of sexual harassment allegations against him and subsequent reassignment, appellant has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that the reasons proffered for appellee's actions were pretextual, or that a reasonable trier of fact could infer discrimination based on the evidence. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973); Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 2004). With respect to his claim alleging discrimination based on criticism of his performance, appellant has failed to show he was subject to an adverse employment action. See Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2003). With respect to his claim of a hostile work environment, appellant has not presented evidence of offensive conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). Furthermore, appellant has not shown the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to compel discovery. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2001). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D. C. Cir. Rule 41.