Mohammad Hussain v. Gordon Mansfield

Filing 920100225

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2298 MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:07-cv-03370-PJM) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn V. Martin, LAW OFFICES OF DAWN V. MARTIN, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael J. Friedman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mohammad Hussain appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("the VA") on his employment retaliation claims. reversible error, we affirm. Finding no I. Hussain filed suit against the VA under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., alleging that the VA and withheld provided employment false information negative from potential to employers and/or references potential employers in six instances. Hussain claims these acts are in retaliation for his previous employment discrimination claims against the VA. * The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the VA. In granting summary judgment, the district court found that Hussain had not timely filed two of his claims with an Equal Hussain had previously filed an action for employment discrimination in the District of Columbia, alleging that the VA improperly failed to promote him, retaliated against him, created a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged him from his position as a medical oncologist based upon his race, religion, and national origin. The D.C. district court granted summary judgment on all counts against Hussain and in favor of the VA. See Hussain v. Principi, 344 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.D.C. 2004), aff'd, Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2006). * 2 Employment Opportunity ("EEO") an Counselor. aggrieved See to 29 C.F.R. an 1614.105(a)(1) (requiring party bring employment complaint to an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the occurrence complained of). the district court found As to Hussain's other four claims, that Hussain had failed to show a genuine issue of material fact or provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate discriminatory retaliation. Specifically, the district court found that there's just nothing in the record at all with regard to these particular claims that suggests anything relative to race, color, national origin or religion, there's just nothing here. Throughout, and this is the overarching decision which goes back to the District of Columbia's District Court and Circuit Court cases, and the Court finds here as well there are legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for evaluating the plaintiff the way the defendant did. . . . There has to be illegal discrimination of some kind, and there really is none of the described illegal discrimination. J.A. 1530 (oral ruling). court's decision. Hussain timely appealed the district II. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to Hussain. See Williams Having v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 428 (4th Cir. 2004). conducted such a review, we find that the district court did not 3 err. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the the district court. facts and legal before contentions the court materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?