Assam Ali v. Energy Enterprise Solution

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cv-01628-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998536802] [10-1700]

Assam Ali v. Energy Enterprise Solution

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1700

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/03/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1700

ASSAM R. ALI, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. ENERGY ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:09-cv-01628-DKC)

Submitted:

January 10, 2011

Decided:

March 3, 2011

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathlynne Ramirez, KATHLYNNE RAMIREZ, ESQ., LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland; Christopher R. Pudelski, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER R. PUDELSKI, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John J. Hathway, David M. Stevens, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1700

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/03/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Assam granting R. Ali appeals the district motion court's on Ali's order race

Defendant's

summary

judgment

discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010). the district court erred when it granted Ali asserts that Defendant summary

judgment because he alleges that he established genuine issues of material fact regarding his claims. We review the district

court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 607 (4th Cir. 2010). district court's order. We conclude that the district court correctly See Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605,

For the following reasons, we affirm the

determined that Ali could not establish a disparate discipline claim based on Defendant's revocation of his network privileges because Ali did not establish that others outside his protected class were disciplined less severely for similar conduct. Cook v. CSX Transp. Co., 988 F.2d 507, 511 (4th Cir. See 1993)

(holding that to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discipline, the plaintiff must establish that "the prohibited conduct in which he engaged was comparable in seriousness to misconduct of employees outside the protected class"). 2

Case: 10-1700

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/03/2011

Page: 3

We

also

conclude

that

the

district

court

correctly

determined that Ali could not establish his disparate treatment claim based on unequal pay because he could not rebut pay team and

Defendant's

legitimate, The

nondiscriminatory was that had two

reason other

for

the

differential. employees,

reason

network duties

although

they

similar

responsibilities, were paid slightly more because at the time they joined Defendant's network team, they possessed greater

educational qualifications or had longer length of service with Defendant or in information technology, generally. v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1048-49 (5th See Wallace Cir. 1996)

(recognizing that evidence of more experience in a particular position is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a pay differential); cf. Stanziale v. Jargowsky, 200 F.3d 101, 108 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that a pay differential based on educational qualifications is an affirmative defense under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2006)). Last, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Ali could not establish his retaliation claim because he failed to establish that Defendant's reason for

terminating him (i.e., his refusal to cooperate in finding him a reassignment) was pretextual. Ali admitted that he refused to

cooperate with Defendant's request for a revised resume and thus refused to aid in his placement in a new position. 3 Thus, the

Case: 10-1700

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/03/2011

Page: 4

district cooperate

court with

correctly

determined request Ali's

that was

Ali's a

refusal

to

Defendant's reason for

legitimate, See, e.g.,

nondiscriminatory

termination.

Montes v. Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies, 540 F.3d 852, 857-58 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that employer satisfied burden of identifying nondiscriminatory reason where plaintiff was

terminated "because he was unwilling to cooperate with board and staff members"); Barnhart v. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., 12 F.3d 1382, because 1389 (6th Cir. 1993) ("[S]ummary two judgment and was non-

proper

Defendants

proffered

legitimate

discriminatory reason[s] for termination--deterioration of work and failure to cooperate--and [Plaintiff] failed to demonstrate by a preponderance We of evidence that the that those reasons were

pretext.").

conclude

district

court

correctly

determined that it was up to Ali to present evidence of pretext, which he simply failed to do. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order

granting Defendant summary judgment on Ali's discrimination and retaliation claims. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4