Ruby Holiday v. New Hanover County Registrar o

Filing 920090313

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2120

RUBY M. HOLIDAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NEW HANOVER COUNTY REGISTRAR OF DEEDS; REBECCA TUCKER SMITH, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as New Hanover County Registrar of Deeds, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cv-00204-BR)

Submitted:

February 11, 2009

Decided:

March 13, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Newell Gray, GRAY NEWELL, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. James R. Morgan, Jr., Mary Craven Adams, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ruby Holiday filed the instant action against New

Hanover County Registrar of Deeds Rebecca Tucker Smith, in her official and individual capacities, alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000); N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 143-422.2; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), arising from Holiday's employment termination. The district court granted Smith's

motion for summary judgment.

We affirm.

We review a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. F.3d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 2008). See Nader v. Blair, 549

Summary judgment may be granted

only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To survive summary judgment, Holiday must come forth with either direct evidence of discrimination or establish a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). direct evidence of racial discrimination. facie case of discriminatory

Holiday submitted no To establish a prima under Title VII,

termination

§ 1983, or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2, Holiday must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her job and performing at a satisfactory level; (3) she was 2

terminated; and (4) she was replaced by a similarly situated applicant outside her protected class. Center v. Hicks, Inc., 509 871 U.S. F.2d 502, 452, 506 455 See St. Mary's Honor (1993); (4th Williams Cir. v.

Cerberonics,

1989).

Establishment of this prima facie case of discrimination "in effect creates a presumption the that the employer Dep't unlawfully of Cmty.

discriminated

against

employee."

Texas

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981).

Where a plaintiff

makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the

employment action.

McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802.

If the

employer produces a legitimate reason for the action, the burden once again shifts to the plaintiff to show that the employer's rationale is just a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804.

Here, it is not clear that Holiday established a prima facie case of discriminatory termination. agree that Holiday is a member of a Though both parties protected class, was

terminated, and was replaced by someone not in her protected class, the parties differ as to whether Holiday was performing at a satisfactory level. Smith presented evidence that Holiday

made slanderous statements about a co-worker's husband, abused attendance policies, engaged in insubordinate behavior, and

repeatedly engaged in conversations of a personal nature, in violation of office policy. 3

Even assuming that Holiday was able to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, however, Smith articulated ample legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

Holiday's termination.

In so doing, Smith successfully rebutted

any discriminatory presumptions raised by Holiday. Though Holiday had "the full and fair opportunity to demonstrate . . . that the proffered reason[s] [were] not the true reason for the employment decision," Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, she failed to do so. previous issues," written this While Holiday contends "[s]he had no or documented by the work performance Holiday

reprimands is

assertion

belied

record.

further argues that Smith exhibited a "pattern and practice of disparate treatment toward black employees." However, evidence

of systematic discrimination alone cannot prove the elements of a discrimination claim. See, e.g., Scarlett v. Seaboard Coast

Line R. Co., 676 F.2d 1043, 1053 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (holding that one "proceeding as an individual under Title VII must prove the elements of a [discrimination] A plaintiff claim must as set forth in of

McDonnell

Douglas").

provide

evidence

discrimination she has personally experienced. unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations of

Id.

Holiday's animus are

racial

insufficient to survive a summary judgment motion.

See, e.g.,

Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.

4

2002) (noting that "[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice" to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order

granting Smith's motion for summary judgment. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before

We dispense with contentions the court are and

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

5