Adeline Benjamin v. Thomas Vilsack
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ADELINE B. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS J. Agriculture, VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02990-DKC)
July 10, 2009
July 24, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), on her claim alleging retaliation Rights Act and of discrimination 1964, 42 U.S.C. under § Title VII of the Civil Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (2006). Benjamin Specialist with is employed as a Grants filed and Agreement Equal
Employment Opportunity administrative complaints based on age, gender, and retaliation, all of which have been decided in favor of the USDA. Benjamin's prior complaint filed in the district
court was dismissed on summary judgment, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. (4th Cir. Mar. 8, 2007). The essential facts underlying this appeal are that Benjamin was suspended for fourteen days due to her failure to follow supervisory instructions. Benjamin filed a Benjamin v. Veneman, 1 F. App'x 192
discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which denied her claims. a complaint in the district action of in court, Thereafter, Benjamin filed claiming for the suspension prior The the
constituted complaints, district
retaliation ADEA and
filing VII. of
employer, finding Benjamin failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to rebut the legitimate non-discriminatory
reasons for the suspension offered by her employer. After conducting de novo review of the district
court's grant of summary judgment, Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007), we find the undisputed material facts entitle the employer to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Benjamin failed to establish a
477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
causal connection existed between the protected activity -- her prior complaints -- and the asserted adverse action -- her
Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53,
57 (2006); see also Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220, 229 (4th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Benjamin utterly failed to show that
the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the suspension were pretextual. See Matvia v. Bald Head
Island Mgmt., Inc., 259 F.3d 261, 271 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Benjamin v. Vilsack, No. 8:07-cv-02990-DKC (D. We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
Md. Aug. 22, 2008). facts and legal before
contentions the court
decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?