Noah Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01360-AJT-TRJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999225477].. [12-2170]

Appeal: 12-2170

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2170

NOAH NATHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS
U.S.A., INC., f/k/a Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America,
Inc.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01360-AJT-TRJ)

Argued:

September 19, 2013

Decided:

October 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and Samuel G. WILSON,
United States District Judge for the Western District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: James Alfred Bell, IV, BELL & BELL LLP, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Dana Lewis Rust, MCGUIREWOODS,
LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Christian B.
Nagel, FLUET, HUBER & HOANG, PLLC, Lake Ridge, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Stephanie
B.
Karn,
Edward
M.
Eakin,
III,
MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 12-2170

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2170

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal by Noah Nathan (“Nathan”) from the entry
of summary judgment on his claims against Takeda Pharmaceuticals
North

America,

Inc.

and

Takeda

Pharmaceuticals

America,

Inc.

(collectively referred to as “Takeda”) for alleged violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et
seq. (2012).
court

found

Nathan’s

In a published memorandum decision, the district
that

claims

Takeda
that

was

entitled

Takeda:

(1)

to

summary

discriminated

judgment
against

on
him

because of his status as a male caregiver; (2) subjected him to
a hostile work environment; and (3) retaliated against him for
engaging in protected activity.

We affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Bonds v.
Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.
Ct. 398 (2011).

Summary judgment is only appropriate when there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
addition,

we

must

review

the

evidence

in

the

light

In
most

favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
In

consideration

of

this

standard,

we

have

carefully

reviewed the issues, the record, the law, and the arguments we
have heard and conclude that there is little that we can add to
3

Appeal: 12-2170

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the district court.
Thus,

we

affirm

the

judgment

below

on

the

reasoning

of

the

district court. See Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 890 F.
Supp. 2d 629 (E.D. Va. 2012).
AFFIRMED

4