Maureen Gage v. Cort Business Service

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:08-cv-03463-PJM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998523082] [10-1464]

Case: 10-1464

Document: 32

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1464

MAUREEN E. GAGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORT BUSINESS SERVICES, a/k/a Cort Furniture Rental,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-03463-PJM)

Submitted:

January 26, 2011

Decided:

February 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anne Sampson Gbenjo, THE GBENJO LAW GROUP, Houston, Texas, for
Appellant.
Joseph A. Ciucci, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-1464

Document: 32

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Maureen E. Gage appeals the district court’s judgment
denying

her

judgment

motions

granting

to

alter

summary

or

amend

judgment

and

to

the

reconsider
Appellee,

its
Cort

Business Services (“Cort”), in her Title VII discrimination and
retaliation suit.

We affirm.

Gage raised claims in the district court that Cort
violated her rights by failing to accommodate her disability,
creating a hostile work environment, discriminating against her
because of her age and race, and retaliating against her.
has

confined

her

appeal

only

to

the

issue

of

She

retaliation.

Accordingly, she has abandoned appellate review of her remaining
claims.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s order
granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.
556

F.3d

165,

167

Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2009).

Summary

judgment

is

appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and
the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
unless

“a

reasonable

jury

Summary judgment will be granted
could

return

nonmoving party” on the evidence presented.
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

2

a

verdict

for

the

Anderson v. Liberty

Case: 10-1464

Document: 32

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

Page: 3

Absent direct evidence of intentional discrimination,
Title

VII

claims

are

analyzed

under

the

burden-shifting

framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792, 793 (1973).
discrimination,
that:

(i)

a

she

In order to state a prima facie claim of

plaintiff
engaged

in

in

a

a

retaliation

protected

case

must

activity;

(ii)

show
her

employer took an adverse action against her; and (iii) there is
a

causal

adverse

connection
action.

Ziskie

(4th Cir. 2008).
must

show

between

the
v.

protected

activity

547

Mineta,

the

220,

F.3d

and

229

To satisfy the second element, a plaintiff

that

a

reasonable

employee

would

have

found

the

challenged action materially adverse, which . . . means it well
might

have

dissuaded

a

reasonable

worker

supporting a charge of discrimination.”

from

making

or

Burlington N. & Santa

Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006).

If the plaintiff

makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the employer
to

articulate

adverse

a

action.

(4th Cir. 2006).

legitimate,
Baquir
If

the

non-retaliatory

v.

Principi,

employer

makes

reason

434

F.3d

such

a

for

the

733,

747

showing,

the

burden returns to the plaintiff to establish that this reason is
a pretext for discrimination.

Id.

The parties agree that Cort terminated Gage, and her
termination constitutes an adverse employment action within the
meaning

of

Title

VII.

Moreover,
3

Gage

clearly

engaged

in

Case: 10-1464

Document: 32

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

Page: 4

protected activity by making complaints to Cort human resources
officials that her supervisors were engaged in what she felt to
be harassment related to her injuries following a series of car
accidents.
conclude

We

that

protected

have

Gage

reviewed

has

activities

not

and

the

drawn

the

record,
a

causal

adverse

however,
link

action.

and

between
There

we
the

was

a

significant lapse in time between when Gage made her complaints
and when she was terminated, Cort has proffered a valid, nondiscriminatory rationale for her termination, and it is at least
arguable whether the Cort employees who made the decision to
terminate

Gage

activity.

were

aware

that

she

had

engaged

in

protected

In light of this record, we conclude that Gage has

not carried her burden to establish a prima facie case.
We
court.
legal
before

therefore

affirm

the

judgment

of

the

district

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4