FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

DEC 10 2003

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOYCE MONTABON,

		Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,

		Defendant-Appellee.	

No.  02-1562
(D.C. No. 00-WM-2258 (BNB))
(D. Colo.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  
	Plaintiff Joyce Montabon appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant City and County of Denver on her claims alleging gender discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17, for gender discrimination, and retaliation for complaining about violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621-34.  Montabon’s gender discrimination claims were based on hostile work environment and disparate treatment.  In granting the City’s motion for summary judgment, the district court held that:  (1) Montabon’s hostile work environment claim fails because she is simply complaining about the general environment in which she worked and she has not adequately linked any of her complaints to gender; (2) Montabon’s disparate treatment claim fails because she does not offer any evidence that other similarly-situated male employees were treated differently; (3) Montabon’s ADEA claim fails because she cannot demonstrate that she engaged in protected activity in opposition to discrimination.  We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) as the district court.  See Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999).
	On appeal, Montabon raises the following issues:  “(1) Could the treatment of the plaintiff-appellant be viewed as sexually discriminatory under Title VII, [under] either hostile work environment or disparate treatment?  (2) Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did she complain about age discrimination? (3) Could a jury have found that plaintiff-appellant’s age discrimination complaints resulted in retaliation?”  Aplt’s Br. at 5.
	After careful review of the record on appeal and the applicable legal standards, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case.  Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in its thorough Order dated November 27, 2002.

				Entered for the Court

				Michael W. McConnell
				Circuit Judge