Vidya Sagar v. Oracle Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-03510-PJM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999100023]. [12-2380, 12-2487]--[Docket Text Edited 05/02/2013 by ALC - no mail recipients]

Appeal: 12-2380

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2380

VIDYA SAGAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ORACLE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-2487

VIDYA SAGAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ORACLE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cv-03510-PJM)

Submitted:

April 23, 2013

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 2, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Appeal: 12-2380

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vidya Sagar, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward Lee Isler, Lori Hunt
Turner, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2380

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/02/2013

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Vidya Sagar filed a civil action against his former
employer,

Oracle

Corporation

(“Oracle”),

alleging

wrongful

termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 2008 &
Supp.

2012)

appeals

the

Challenge

(“ADEA”).

In

district

court’s

Routine

these

Designation

consolidated

orders
of

denying

appeals,
his

Confidential”

“Motion

and

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

to

“Corrected

Motion to Challenge Routine Designation of Confidential.”
also

Sagar

granting

Sagar
summary

judgment in favor of Oracle and denying his cross-motion for
summary judgment.
In

We affirm.

appeal

12-2380,

Sagar

challenges

the

district

court’s denial of his motion and corrected motion to “Challenge
Routine Designation of Confidential.” ∗

This court gives district

courts “wide latitude in controlling discovery” and will not
disturb discovery orders “absent a showing of clear abuse of
∗

Sagar also challenges the magistrate judge’s denial of his
motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to compel
discovery.
Sagar’s notice of appeal, however, failed to
designate the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration as an order for which he sought review, as
required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). Moreover, because it does
not appear from the record that the parties consented to the
exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge, and Sagar did
not appeal the magistrate judge’s order to the district court,
the magistrate judge’s order is not subject to appellate review
in this court.

3

Appeal: 12-2380

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/02/2013

discretion.”

Pg: 4 of 6

Rowland v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 340 F.3d 187, 195

(4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because

Sagar does not assert that he has been unable to access Oracle’s
records

or

demonstrate

that

the

documents

at

issue

are

not

sensitive in nature, he fails to establish that the district
court abused its discretion in refusing to grant his motions.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Sagar’s
motions.
This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment

de

novo,

viewing

the

facts

and

drawing

reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
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.”
Civ. P. 56(a).
outcome

of

“Only disputes over facts that might affect the

the

suit

under

the

governing

preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
for

summary

Fed. R.

judgment,

the

law

will

properly

Anderson v. Liberty
To withstand a motion

non-moving

party

must

produce

competent evidence to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact for trial.
Co.,

312

speculative

F.3d

645,

See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power

649

allegations

do

(4th
not
4

Cir.

2002)

suffice,

(“Conclusory

nor

does

a

or
mere

Appeal: 12-2380

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/02/2013

Pg: 5 of 6

scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party’s]
case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The ADEA forbids “an employer . . . to discharge any
individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment,
§ 623(a)

because

of

(2006).

discrimination,

such

Absent

this

individual’s
direct

Court

age.”

evidence

analyzes

ADEA

29

of

U.S.C.

intentional

claims

under

the

burden-shifting framework established for Title VII claims in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Warch v.

Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 513-14 (4th Cir. 2006).

Under

this framework, Sagar must first establish a prima facie case of
age discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.
513.

Id. at

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Sagar

must demonstrate that: “(1) he is a member of the protected
class;

(2)

legitimate

he

was

qualified

expectations;

for

the

job

he

was

discharged

(3)

and

met

[Oracle]’s

despite

his

qualifications and performance; and (4) following his discharge,
he

was

replaced

by

a

substantially

comparable qualifications.”
If
shifts

to

a

prima

Oracle

case

is

demonstrate

established,
“a

the

legitimate,

discriminatory reason” for Sagar’s termination.
at 513-14.

individual

with

Id.

facie
to

younger

burden
non-

Warch, 435 F.3d

If Oracle meets this burden, “the presumption of
5

Appeal: 12-2380

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/02/2013

Pg: 6 of 6

discrimination created by the prima facie case disappears from
the

case

and

the

plaintiff

must

justification is pretextual.”

prove

that

the

proffered

Id. at 514 (internal quotation

marks omitted).
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to Oracle.
stage

because

he

does

Sagar’s claims fail at the prima facie
not

offer

any

evidence

from

which

a

factfinder could conclude that, at the time of his discharge, he
was meeting Oracle’s legitimate expectations.

Sagar also fails

to establish that, following his discharge, he was replaced by a
substantially younger individual with comparable qualifications.
Further, even assuming, as the district court did, that Sagar
made a prima facie showing, he fails to establish that Oracle’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging him were a
pretext for intentional discrimination.

Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

6