Adeline Benjamin v. Thomas Vilsack

Filing 920090724

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2152

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)

Submitted:

July 10, 2009

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2000e

(2006),

and

the

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (2006). Benjamin Specialist with is employed as a Grants filed and Agreement Equal

the

USDA.

Benjamin

has

several

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

adverse in

retaliation ADEA and

filing VII. of

violation granted

the

Title in

court

summary 2

judgment

favor

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

suspension.

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

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED 3