Virginia Whitaker v. Nash County

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00055-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999020283]. Mailed to: Virginia Whitaker. [12-2128, 12-2181]

Appeal: 12-2128

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2128

VIRGINIA DIEPHEAL WHITAKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NASH COUNTY; NASH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
MELVIA BATTS, Director; JOSIE GREEN, Food and
Supervisor,

SERVICES;
Nutrition

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-2181

VIRGINIA DIEPHEAL WHITAKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NASH COUNTY; NASH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
MELVIA BATTS, Director; JOSIE GREEN, Food and
Supervisor,

SERVICES;
Nutrition

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-cv-00055-FL; 5:11-cv-00015-FL)

Submitted:

January 3, 2013

Decided:

January 11, 2013

Appeal: 12-2128

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Virginia Diepheal Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Nell Craven,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2128

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM
Virginia

Diepheal

Whitaker

appeals

the

district

court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in her
civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West
2003 & Supp. 2012), and her state law libel claims.
Whitaker

challenges

the

district

court’s

grant

On appeal,
of

summary

judgment on her claims for retaliation, racial discrimination,
creation

of

discrimination.

a

hostile

work

environment,

and

religious

We affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de

novo,

drawing

reasonable

inferences

favorable to the non-moving party.

in

the

light

most

PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead

Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011).

Summary

judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

To

withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party
must produce competent evidence to reveal the existence of a
genuine

issue

of

material

Potomac

Elec.

Power

Co.,

fact
312

for

F.3d

trial.
645,

See

649

(4th

Thompson
Cir.

v.

2002)

(“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does
a

mere

scintilla

party’s] case.”

of

evidence

in

support

of

[the

(internal quotation marks omitted)).
3

non-moving

Appeal: 12-2128

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 4 of 6

Title VII prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]
against

any

individual

with

respect

to

[her]

compensation,

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s . . . race.”

42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Where

there is no direct evidence of discrimination, “a plaintiff may
proceed under the [McDonnell Douglas] ‘pretext’ framework, under
which the employee, after establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination,

demonstrates

that

the

employer’s

proffered

permissible reason for taking an adverse employment action is
actually a pretext for discrimination.”

Diamond v. Colonial

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 318 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Title VII also

forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee through
adverse
protected

employment
conduct

discrimination.
Cir.

2003).

actions
such

as

because
filing

the

employee

grievances

engaged

alleging

in

racial

King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 150-51 (4th
It

is

well

established

that,

even

under

the

McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme, the ultimate burden of
persuasion remains on the plaintiff at all times.

Tex. Dep’t of

Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
The

district

court

properly

suffered two adverse employment actions:
termination.

found

that

Whitaker

failure to promote and

See James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d
4

Appeal: 12-2128

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 5 of 6

371, 375 (4th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse employment action is a
discriminatory
conditions,

act

or

which

benefits

adversely
of

the

affects

plaintiff’s

the

terms,

employment.”)

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

We conclude

that Whitaker has failed to demonstrate that the Defendants’
legitimate,
and

her

non-discriminatory
termination

were

reasons

for

pretextual,

failure

to

promote

either

for

racial

for

hostile

work

(1)

she

discrimination or retaliation.
In
environment,

order

to

Whitaker

establish
must

a

claim

demonstrate

that:

experienced unwelcome harassment; (2) based on race; (3) that
was “sufficiently severe or pervasive” to alter the conditions
of her employment and to create an “abusive atmosphere”; and
(4) that
employer.

this

conduct

it

imputable

on

some

basis

to

her

EEOC v. Cent. Wholesalers, Inc., 573 F.3d 167, 175

(4th Cir. 2009).
when

was

We find that the district court did not err

dismissed

Whitaker’s

claims

because

she

did

not

establish the presence of conduct severe or pervasive enough to
create a work environment both that she perceived as abusive and
that a reasonable person would find hostile and abusive.

See

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not
err when it dismissed Whitaker’s religious discrimination claim
for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.
5

Under 42

Appeal: 12-2128

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/11/2013

Pg: 6 of 6

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (2006), a Title VII charge must be filed
with

the

EEOC

within

180

days

“after

the

alleged

unlawful

employment practice occurred,” or with a state or local agency
within 300 days of such practice.
551

F.3d

297,

300

(4th

Cir.

Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd.,

2009).

“[A]

failure

by

the

plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies concerning a Title
VII

claim

deprives

the

federal

jurisdiction over the claim.”
her

EEOC

complaint

discrimination.
be

barred

if

Id.

that

courts

of

subject

matter

Whitaker did not indicate on

she

had

suffered

religious

“[A] claim in formal litigation will generally
the

EEOC

charge

alleges

discrimination

on

one

basis, such as race, and the formal litigation claim alleges
discrimination on a separate basis.”

Id.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6