Anthony Harris v. The Homes Sales Company
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01109-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999002604].. [11-1313]
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 1 of 22
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1313
ANTHONY D. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE HOME SALES COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THE MARYLAND HOME SALES
SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
COMPANY,
INCORPORATED;
APARTMENT
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01109-RDB)
Argued:
September 20, 2012
Decided:
December 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: George Alphanso Rose, ROSE LAW FIRM LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Kelly Culp Lovett, KOLLMAN & SAUCIER,
PA, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Peter S.
Saucier, KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, PA, Timonium, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 2 of 22
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 3 of 22
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Anthony Harris appeals the district court’s award
of summary judgment to Appellee Apartment Services, Inc. and its
corporate
affiliates.
discriminated
Harris
him,
against
claims
that
wrongfully
Apartment
demoted
Services
him,
and
wrongfully terminated his employment because of his race and in
retaliation
for
his
complaints
of
discrimination.
For
the
reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Apartment Services.
I.
A.
The
following
facts
favorable to Harris.
(4th
Cir.
2006).
are
presented
in
the
light
most
See Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559, 562
Apartment
Services,
a
property
management
company, owns and manages more than forty apartment and townhome
communities in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
on-site
leasing
supervisor.
and
service
Apartment
staff
Services
Each property has an
headed
employed
by
a
Harris,
full-time
an
African
American, from 1997 until his termination in May 2005.
Harris
initially served as a maintenance technician for the company at
a number of properties.
supervisor
Maryland.
of
the
During
In 2000, he was promoted to maintenance
Rosalind
this
Gardens
time,
Harris
3
property
lived
in
Baltimore,
rent-free
in
a
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
townhome
Filed: 12/14/2012
supplied
by
Pg: 4 of 22
Apartment
Services
on
one
of
its
properties, McDonogh Village, which was a short drive away from
Rosalind.
Harris remained at this job until April 2005 and
performed satisfactorily as Rosalind’s maintenance supervisor.
In reviews, however, his supervisor noted that Harris had issues
with punctuality and accessibility during work hours.
At
some
Steinhoff,
point
informed
in
March
Rosalind
2005,
Harris’s
employees
that
supervisor,
a
new
Jeff
property
management company, CT Management, would take over operation of
the property as of May 1, 2005.
would
assume
Management’s
management
properties
In return, Apartment Services
of
in
Somerset
Severn,
Woods,
Maryland.
one
of
Steinhoff
CT
then
offered the employees the opportunity to stay with Apartment
Services at a different property, not necessarily Somerset, at
the same pay and benefits, or to remain at Rosalind as a CT
Management employee.
All of the employees, including Harris,
chose to remain an Apartment Services employee at one of the
other properties.
Because
Apartment
Services
planned
to
take
over
responsibility for Somerset Woods on May 1, 2005, it needed to
fill
the
maintenance
supervisor
position
positions for the property by that date.
and
technician
Steinhoff spoke with
Todd Hamlett, who was scheduled to become Somerset’s manager,
and
Ray
Wilkens,
Apartment
Services’s
4
Vice
President
of
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 5 of 22
Operations, regarding new positions for the Rosalind employees.
Based
on
Harris
Steinhoff’s
the
position
Accordingly,
either
recommendation,
Hamlett
of
supervisor
in
maintenance
March
or
early
agreed
April,
Hamlett’s behalf, offered the position to Harris.
Harris
indicated
expressed
he
concerns,
was
interested
particularly
at
mid-April
Harris
contacted
offer
Somerset.
Steinhoff,
in
the
position,
but
about
the
increase
in
Trudy
Via,
on
At that time,
commute time, and sought additional pay and benefits.
in
to
Director
he
his
Indeed,
of
Human
Resources for Apartment Services, seeking to discuss additional
pay and benefits.
Harris nevertheless asserts he accepted the
offer without reservation.
At some point several weeks thereafter, Hamlett offered the
position
to
Mike
King,
a
Caucasian
supervisor
in
training.
Although King had worked for the company two years longer than
Harris, he had not previously held a supervisory position.
promptly accepted the position.
King
The record shows that Hamlett
(1) waited several weeks after Steinhoff offered the position to
Harris
before
offering
it
to
King
and
(2)
was
unaware
of
Harris’s willingness to work at Somerset when he offered the
position to King.
After work on Friday, April 29, 2005, Steinhoff instructed
Harris to report for work at Somerset on Monday, May 2, 2005.
Harris
appeared
for
work
at
Somerset
5
on
May
2,
2005,
five
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 6 of 22
minutes past his scheduled start time of 8:00 AM.
Harris’s
medical records show that, before coming in to work on this
date, Harris went to a medical center for a pre-employment drug
test
for
Maryland
Management
Corporation,
another
property
management company.
After Harris arrived at the property, he greeted Mike King
in the leasing office and claims he overheard Hamlett on the
phone say to King, “Tell that nigger to get to work on time.”
Harris asserts that King then said, “Todd says to get to work on
time.”
Both
Hamlett
and
King
offensive remark, respectively.
leasing
manager,
was
also
deny
making
and
hearing
the
Deborah Baldauf, the property
present
in
the
office
and
denies
hearing Hamlett’s derogatory remark.
Upon his arrival, Harris found out he had been assigned to
the position of a maintenance technician, although he was given
the same pay and benefits as his previous position.
Harris also
discovered that the supervisory maintenance position had been
filled by a white employee.
Upon learning this information,
Harris claims he became distraught.
He reports that he asked to
speak to Hamlett about his concerns, but that Hamlett failed to
contact
becoming
him.
After
increasingly
working
anxious
for
three
about
days
the
at
work
Somerset
and
situation
and
racial epithet, Harris left early on May 5, 2005, to visit a
doctor about his anxiety.
Harris faxed a letter to Apartment
6
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Services
Filed: 12/14/2012
explaining
his
sick
Pg: 7 of 22
leave
for
three
business
days.
Harris’s doctor released him to return to work on May 10, 2005.
While
on
sick
leave,
Harris
continued
secure employment with Maryland Management.
to
take
steps
to
On May 9, 2005, he
completed employment paperwork at the company’s office.
His
offer letter, dated May 9, 2005, indicated a start date of May
16, 2005.
seek
At his deposition, Harris claimed he felt he had to
alternative
employment
while
on
sick
leave
because
he
feared for his job after his demotion.
Although his doctor released him to work on May 10, 2005,
Harris failed to report for work thereafter because he claims he
felt “emotionally sick” about his employment situation and had
not yet spoken with Hamlett.
According to Harris, on May 11,
2005, he had a lawyer call Apartment Services concerning his
employment status.
phone.
However,
In response, Hamlett contacted Harris by
Hamlett
states
that
he
spoke
with
Harris,
without prompt, by phone on May 10, 2005, or May 11, 2005, when
Harris failed to appear for work.
Harris
and
Hamlett
provide
their phone conversation.
to
install
Harris
as
property, Lawyers Hill.
conflicting
descriptions
of
Harris concedes that Hamlett offered
a
maintenance
supervisor
at
another
Harris also reports that he complained
at that time about Hamlett’s use of a racial epithet.
Harris
contends that Hamlett told him to take the rest of week off on
7
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 8 of 22
personal leave, and that Hamlett would contact him later in the
week about the Lawyers Hill position.
When deposed, Hamlett
agreed that he offered Harris the position at Lawyers Hill but
noted that Harris did not accept the offer.
Hamlett claims that
Harris stated he would get back to Hamlett with a final decision
on the opportunity.
Hamlett denies instructing Harris to remain
at home for the remainder of the week.
On May 12, 2005, Harris faxed completed sign-in sheets to
Apartment Services showing the he was taking personal leave for
the remainder of the week.
On the cover sheet, he asked to
speak
[his]
with
Trudy
Via
“about
treatment by a property [manager].”
employment
and
unfair
job
Although he addressed the
fax to Hamlett, he sent it to the payroll department, in which
Hamlett did not work.
Hamlett claims that he did not see the
fax.
Hamlett testified that because he had not heard from Harris
by May 13, 2005, he concluded that Harris had abandoned his job.
Accordingly, Hamlett sent Harris a letter, dated May 13, 2005,
terminating his employment.
Three days later, on May 16, 2005,
Harris began his new job at Maryland Management.
On June 13,
2005, Hamlett hired Dante Logan, an African American, to replace
Harris as Somerset’s maintenance technician.
8
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 9 of 22
B.
Harris brought suit in the United States District Court for
the
District
demoted
and
of
Maryland,
terminated
alleging
him
that
because
Apartment
of
his
race
Services
and
in
retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination, in
violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
On
March
7,
2011,
the
district
court
judgment in favor of Apartment Services.
that
Harris
failed
to
put
forth
granted
summary
The court determined
sufficient
direct
or
circumstantial evidence that his termination was based on race.
Additionally, the court determined that Harris failed to present
a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge because he was
replaced
by
another
African
American
individual,
and
he
presented no evidence that could show that Apartment Services’s
legitimate proffered reason for firing Harris was disingenuous.
The
district
existed
with
court
concluded
respect
to
that
pretext.
no
issue
The
of
material
district
court
fact
also
rejected Harris’s retaliation claim, finding that he failed to
show he engaged in protected activity as required to establish a
prima facie case of retaliation.
However, the district court
failed to consider Harris’s protest of the racist remark in his
phone conversation with Hamlett when determining whether Harris
had engaged in protected conduct.
9
Further, it appears that the
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 10 of 22
district court overlooked the issue of Harris’s demotion as a
distinct
aspect
appealed.
of
his
discrimination
claim.
Harris
timely
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
We review de novo the district court’s order of summary
judgment
in
favor
of
Apartment
Services,
standard as the district court.
if,
viewing
the
the
same
See Holland v. Wash. Homes,
Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007).
only
applying
evidence
and
We affirm the order
drawing
all
reasonable
inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmovant, there are no
disputed
material
facts
and
the
judgment as a matter of law.
moving
party
is
entitled
to
Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524,
531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
However, “[t]he mere existence
of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
defeat
an
judgment.”
289,
300
otherwise
properly
supported
motion
for
summary
Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 601 F.3d
(4th
Cir.
2010)
(alteration
in
original)
(quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Instead, “factual disputes
must be both material and genuine.”
Id.
“A mere ‘scintilla of
evidence’ is not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary
judgment.”
Phillips v. CSX Transp., Inc., 190 F.3d 285, 287
(4th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
“Summary judgment will not lie if
10
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 11 of 22
the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242.
III.
Harris
contends
that
the
district
court
erred
when
it
granted summary judgment to Apartment Services on his claims
that he was discriminated against because of his race when he
was
demoted
and
ultimately
terminated.
Harris
asserts
claims under two federal statutes: Title VII and § 1981.
statutes
impose
identical
discrimination claims.
786 (4th Cir. 2004).
requirements
to
evaluate
his
These
race
See Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766,
Therefore, the district court was correct
in analyzing the statutes together.
A.
A plaintiff may establish a claim of race discrimination in
one of two manners.
First, he may do so “by demonstrating
through direct or circumstantial evidence that his race was a
motivating factor in the employer’s adverse employment action.”
Holland,
summary
487
F.3d
judgment
at
is
213.
to
“The
proceed
second
under
a
method
of
‘pretext’
averting
framework,
under which the employee, after establishing a prima facie case
of
discrimination,
demonstrates
11
that
the
employer’s
proffered
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 12 of 22
permissible reason for taking an adverse employment action is
actually a pretext for discrimination.”
Id. (quoting Hill v.
Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 285 (4th
Cir. 2004)(en banc)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Harris seeks to use both avenues of proof.
asserts
that
sufficient
the
district
direct
court
and
erred
because
circumstantial
First, Harris
he
produced
evidence
that
discrimination led to his demotion and termination to establish
a case of race discrimination without applying the McDonnell
Douglas
pretext
framework.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
See
McDonnell
Douglas
Corp.
v.
Second, Harris asserts that even if
he failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish a claim of
race discrimination, he produced evidence sufficient to satisfy
the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting proof scheme.
We will
address each argument in turn.
B.
Harris
first
contends
that
he
has
put
forth
sufficient
direct and circumstantial evidence of discrimination to survive
a
motion
for
summary
judgment.
But,
the
only
direct
or
circumstantial evidence Harris has presented that his demotion
and termination were motivated by race is his claim that he
overheard Hamlett refer to him using a racial epithet.
As an
initial matter, however, it is highly speculative that Hamlett
12
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
ever made the remark.
Pg: 13 of 22
Harris never claims any remark was made
to him: rather, Harris claims to have overheard Hamlett make the
comment through Mike King’s cell phone receiver, as Harris was
greeting him from the other side of the leasing office doorway.
Moreover, the only person who claims to have heard the remark is
Harris himself.
Two other individuals were also present when
the comment was allegedly uttered -- King and a leasing manager
named Deborah Baldauf -- and both deny that the remark was ever
made.
In any event, even viewing this evidence in the light most
favorable to Harris, this evidence is not sufficiently probative
to
raise
whether
that
a
genuine
Hamlett
actually
survive
issue
harbored
resulted
summary
of
material
discriminatory
in
judgment,
his
demotion
Harris
must
fact
on
animus
and
the
issue
toward
Harris
termination.
produce
of
evidence
To
that
illustrates a nexus between the discriminatory remark and the
adverse employment action.
See Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation
Club, 180 F.3d 598, 608 (4th Cir. 1999).
In this case, Harris
has alleged only one isolated discriminatory statement, and has
failed
to
connect
this
statement
with
concerning his demotion and termination.
demotion
made.
took
place
well
before
the
any
of
the
incidents
After all, Harris’s
alleged
remark
was
even
And it was not until nearly two weeks after the remark
was supposedly made (by which point Harris had failed to show up
13
Appeal: 11-1313
to
Doc: 41
work
after
Filed: 12/14/2012
the
end
of
his
Pg: 14 of 22
sick
leave)
that
Harris
was
terminated.
Again, we have made clear that “stray or isolated”
remarks
insufficient
are
to
prove
discrimination,
see,
e.g.,
Merritt, 601 F.3d at 300, absent some actual relationship to the
adverse employment actions under challenge.
For the reasons
explained herein, the totality of the record evidence fails to
raise any triable issue of fact that these actions were taken
out of discriminatory animus, and the district court’s grant of
summary judgment was accordingly warranted.
C.
Next, Harris claims that the district court erred when it
concluded that he had failed to prove a prima facie case of
discriminatory
framework.
termination
under
the
McDonnell
Douglas
Harris also asserts that the district court erred
when it failed to consider his claim of discriminatory demotion
pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas.
Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff demonstrates a prima
facie case of race discrimination by showing that (1) he is a
member of a protected class; (2) he suffered adverse employment
action; (3) he was performing his job duties at a level that met
his employer’s legitimate expectation at the time of the adverse
employment action; and (4) the position remained open or was
filled
by
similarly
qualified
14
applicants
outside
of
the
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
protected class.
Harris
makes
Pg: 15 of 22
See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802.
this
showing,
the
burden
shifts
to
If
Apartment
Services to produce evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for terminating or demoting him.
Services
demoting
offers
or
Apartment
demoting
legitimate,
terminating
Services’s
him
are
discrimination.
If Apartment
non-discriminatory
Harris,
Harris
proffered
untrue
See id.
must
reasons
then
for
prove
that
reasons
terminating
instead
and
for
are
a
See id. at 804.
pretext
or
for
Despite the intricacies of
this proof scheme, “[t]he ultimate question in every employment
discrimination case involving a claim of disparate treatment is
whether
the
plaintiff
discrimination.”
was
Merritt,
the
601
victim
F.3d
at
of
295
intentional
(alteration
in
original) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 153 (2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court correctly determined that Harris failed
to present a prima facie case with respect to his termination.
As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Harris, an African
American, is a member of a protected class.
court
noted,
ultimately
it
hired
is
an
also
uncontested
African
American
maintenance technician position.
that
to
As the district
Apartment
Services
fill
Somerset
the
Thus, Harris is unable show
that he was replaced by a person outside his protected class.
15
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 16 of 22
Therefore, Harris has failed to establish a prima facie case of
discriminatory termination.
D.
With
respect
to
his
discriminatory
demonstrated a prima facie case.
demotion,
Harris
has
To establish a prima facie
case for discriminatory demotion, a plaintiff must show that
“(1)
[]he
is
a
member
of
a
protected
class;
(2)
[]he
was
qualified for [his] job and [his] performance was satisfactory;
(3) despite [his] qualifications, []he was removed from [his]
position and reassigned to a [lower-level] position,” and (4)
his
original
position
“remained
open”
or
was
filled
by
a
similarly qualified applicant outside of the protected class.
Love-Lane, 355 F.3d at 787.
It is acknowledged that Harris (1)
is African American (2) was qualified and performed the role of
maintenance supervisor in a satisfactory manner; and (3) was
demoted to a maintenance technician.
As to the final element,
although his particular position at Rosalind disappeared, he was
offered a position at Somerset that was later filled by a person
outside of the protected class.
In sum, Harris can establish
the four elements of a prima facie case of race discrimination
with respect to his demotion.
Because Harris has established a prima facie case of race
discrimination, the burden shifts to Apartment Services to offer
16
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
legitimate,
Filed: 12/14/2012
non-discriminatory
Pg: 17 of 22
reasons
for
Harris’s
demotion.
Apartment Services presented evidence that Harris was demoted
for
a
non-discriminatory
reason,
specifically
because
Hamlett
was not informed in a timely manner of Harris’s acceptance of
the new position.
This explanation is sufficient to shift the
burden to Harris, who must show that “the legitimate reasons
offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a
pretext for discrimination.”
Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v.
Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
Harris
fails
to
submit
sufficient
evidence
of
pretext.
Harris does not dispute that he never informed Hamlett directly
that he was willing to work at Somerset, but contends instead
that he told Steinhoff of his acceptance.
acknowledges
that
Harris
expressed
Steinhoff, meanwhile,
some
interest
in
the
position, but maintains that Harris did not commit until the
last week in April.
It is admitted, therefore, that Hamlett (1)
waited several weeks after Steinhoff offered the position to
Harris
before
offering
it
to
King
and
(2)
was
unaware
of
Harris’s willingness to work at Somerset when he offered the
position to King.
There is no genuine dispute that Hamlett, the
decisionmaker with respect to staffing, knew that Harris had
been offered the position of maintenance supervisor but believed
that
Harris
reasonable
declined
time.
or
had
Even
if
failed
this
17
to
accept
belief
arose
it
within
due
to
a
a
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 18 of 22
miscommunication, “mere mistakes of fact are not evidence of
unlawful discrimination.”
n.1 (4th Cir. 2004).
Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 215
Unfortunately for Harris, he has failed to
put forth sufficient evidence showing that Apartment Services’s
explanation for his demotion was false.
Nothing in the record
supports an inference that Hamlett’s explanation was pretextual
or that Hamlett believed that Harris had accepted the position
when he offered the position to another employee.
Thus, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that
Harris failed to prove a case of discriminatory termination, and
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the
discriminatory
termination
claim.
In
light
of
our
de
novo
review, we also affirm the grant of summary judgment on the
discriminatory
failure
to
demotion
separately
claim
despite
analyze
the
the
issue
district
of
court’s
discriminatory
demotion.
IV.
Harris
further
contends
that
he
was
terminated
in
retaliation for complaining about unfair treatment in violation
of Title VII and § 1981.
fired
for
complaining
Specifically, Harris claims he was
about
about Hamlett’s racist remark.
his
discriminatory
demotion
and
To state a prima facie case of
retaliation, Harris must show that (1) he engaged in a protected
18
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
Pg: 19 of 22
activity; (2) Apartment Services acted adversely against him;
and (3) the protected activity was causally connected to the
adverse action.
See Holland, 487 F.3d at 218.
Harris claims that he engaged in protected activity on May
12, 2005, the day before he was terminated, when he faxed a note
to Trudy Via complaining of “unfair treatment.”
claims
that
he
protested
the
Further, Harris
discriminatory
demotion
and
Hamlett’s racist remark when speaking with Hamlett on the phone.
The district court found that Harris did not engage in protected
opposition activity because, in his note seeking to speak with
Trudy
Via,
he
complained
discrimination.
701–02
(3d
only
of
“unfair
treatment,”
not
See Barber v. CSX Distrib. Servs., 68 F.3d 694,
Cir.
1995)
(concluding
that
a
letter
complaining
“about unfair treatment in general” is not protected activity).
The
district
protested
court,
the
however,
alleged
ignored
Harris’s
claim
discriminatory
demotion
and
that
he
Hamlett’s
racist remark when speaking with Hamlett on the phone.
Taking
these facts into account, Harris has shown that he engaged in
protected activity and that Apartment Services acted adversely
against him by terminating his employment.
To prove a causal connection, Harris must be able to prove
that
Apartment
Services
protected activity.
fired
him
because
he
See Holland, 487 F.3d at 218.
engaged
in
Harris can
show this by proving that Hamlett had knowledge of the protected
19
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
activity.
Filed: 12/14/2012
The
evidence
on
Pg: 20 of 22
this
point,
namely
the
phone
conversation with Hamlett, shows that Hamlett knew of Harris’s
complaints.
Thus, Harris has made out a prima facie case of
retaliatory discharge.
Because Harris has made out a prima facie case, the burden
shifts
to
Apartment
Services
to
articulate
a
legitimate
nonretaliatory reason for his termination to rebut the inference
of
retaliation.
See
McDonnell
Douglas,
411
U.S.
at
802.
Apartment Services has offered that Harris was fired for job
abandonment because Hamlett believed that Harris failed to show
for
work
absence.
for
several
days
without
a
justification
for
his
Consequently, the burden shifts back to Harris to show
that the reason proffered is “mere pretext for retaliation by
proving both that the reason was false, and that discrimination
was the real reason for the challenged conduct.” Holland, 487
F.3d at 218 (quoting Beall v. Abbott Labs., 130 F.3d 614, 619
(4th Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Harris has failed to make this showing.
He is unable to
prove that Hamlett fired him as retaliation as opposed to firing
him for job abandonment.
Harris concedes that he was released
to work on May 10, 2005, but that he failed to report to work
thereafter
and
never
King, of his absence.
alerted
his
immediate
supervisor,
Mike
Nevertheless, Harris contends that he
cannot be fired for job abandonment because Hamlett told him to
20
Appeal: 11-1313
take
Doc: 41
the
Filed: 12/14/2012
rest
awaiting
of
the
Hamlett’s
week
call
Pg: 21 of 22
off,
about
and
the
because
Lawyers
he
Hill
was
merely
opportunity.
Harris, however, has failed to reconcile an inconsistency within
his own statements and conduct.
At the same time he testified
he was expecting Hamlett’s call to begin work at Lawyers Hill on
May
16, 2005,
he
acknowledged
that
he
had
already
completed
paperwork to begin work for Maryland Management on May 16, 2005.
Although
summary
we
do
not
judgment
make
phase,
credibility
we
should
determinations
also
not
find
a
at
the
genuine
dispute of material fact based solely on Harris’s self-serving
testimony.
See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 433
(4th Cir. 2004) (“[A] self-serving opinion . . . cannot, absent
objective corroboration, defeat summary judgment.”).
In light of the uncontroverted evidence regarding Harris’s
absences
court
and
that
his
no
new
employment,
reasonable
jury
we
could
agree
find
with
for
the
Harris
district
on
the
ultimate issue: whether he was terminated in retaliation for
protected conduct.
we
affirm
the
See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242.
district
court’s
grant
of
Accordingly,
summary
judgment
in
favor of Apartment Services on Harris’s retaliation claims.
V.
Harris
has
presented
only
a
scintilla
of
evidence
from
which it may be possible to conclude that race played a factor
21
Appeal: 11-1313
Doc: 41
Filed: 12/14/2012
in his termination and demotion.
Pg: 22 of 22
Harris has failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact showing that he was terminated or
demoted
because
retaliated
of
against
discrimination.
his
him
race
or
that
because
of
his
Apartment
complaint
Services
of
racial
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant
of summary judgment to Apartment Services in all respects.
AFFIRMED
22
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?