Monte Pepper v. Precision Valve Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cv-02532-MGL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999125000].. [12-2449]

Appeal: 12-2449

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/07/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2449

MONTE DEXTER PEPPER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PRECISION VALVE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:10-cv-02532-MGL)

Submitted:

May 31, 2013

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 7, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Hutson, MELVIN HUTSON, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant.
Reginald W. Belcher, TURNER PADGET GRAHAM &
LANEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2449

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/07/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Monte Dexter Pepper appeals the district court’s order
accepting
granting

the

recommendation

summary

Corporation

on

judgment

Pepper’s

of
in

the

magistrate

favor

of

discrimination

and

judge

and

Precision

Valve

retaliation

claims

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (West 2012).

We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary

judgment,

viewing

the

facts

and

drawing

reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010).

Summary

judgment is appropriate when “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).

Summary judgment will

be granted unless “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party” on the evidence presented.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
speculative
scintilla
case.”

of

allegations
evidence

do
in

not

support

suffice,
of

[the

Anderson v.
“Conclusory or

nor

does

nonmoving

a

mere

party’s]

Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649

(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Pepper did not produce direct evidence that
racial

discrimination

motivated

Precision

Valve’s

adverse

actions against him, we analyze his claims under the burden2

Appeal: 12-2449

Doc: 21

shifting

Filed: 06/07/2013

framework

Pg: 3 of 6

established

in

McDonnell

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973).

Douglas

Corp.

v.

See Hill v. Lockheed Martin

Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2004) (en
banc).

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, an employee is

first

required

to

establish

a

prima

facie

case

of

discrimination, showing that (1) he is a member of a protected
class;

(2)

suffered

he

this

accordance
(4) the

suffered
adverse

with

the

circumstances

discrimination. *

an

adverse

action

despite

legitimate

gave

to

rise

“the

action;

performing

employer’s

an

(3)
job

his

he
in

expectations;

inference

of

and

unlawful

Adams v. Trs. of the Univ. of N.C.– Wilmington,

640 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2011).
showing,

employment

burden

shifts

to

If the employee makes this

the

employer

to

articulate

a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment
action.”
evidence

Hill, 354 F.3d at 285.
of

a

nondiscriminatory

If the employer provides

reason

for

its

action,

the

presumption of discrimination is rebutted, and the employee, who
bears

the

ultimate

burden

of

*

persuasion,

must

show

by

a

We decline Pepper’s invitation to adopt the holding of
Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 493-94 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). See Stallworth v. Singing River Health Sys., 469 F.
App’x 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (declining to adopt
Brady); Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 523 F.3d 1187, 1202
n.12 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to adopt Brady and “reserv[ing]
the right to undertake each step of the Supreme Court’s
McDonnell Douglas framework in analyzing discrimination and
retaliation claims on summary judgment”).

3

Appeal: 12-2449

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/07/2013

preponderance
pretext

evidence

of

for

Pg: 4 of 6

the

that

discrimination.

proffered

Reeves

v.

reason

Sanderson

was

a

Plumbing

Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 146-49 (2000).
Here,

Precision

demonstrating

that

expectations,

including

received

multiple

Valve

Pepper

provided

failed

to

meet

documentation

warnings

for

ample

evidence

its

showing

legitimate
Pepper

defective

producing

that

parts,

unexcused absences, tardiness, improperly clocking in or out,
and not being at his machine at the beginning of his shift.
Pepper argues on appeal that Precision Valve cannot logically
claim

that

his

performance

was

unsatisfactory

prior

to

his

termination because Precision Valve continued to employ him for
a time after recognizing deficiencies in his performance.
find this argument unpersuasive.
statements
show

regarding

that

he

met

his

job

Because Pepper’s self-serving

performance

Precision

We

Valve’s

are

insufficient

legitimate

to

performance

expectations, see King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 149-50 (4th
Cir.

2003),

showing
district

of

we

conclude

that

discrimination.

court

did

not

he

cannot

Accordingly,

err

in

granting

make
we

a

prima

hold

summary

facie

that

judgment

the
on

Pepper’s racial discrimination claims.
Pepper next argues that the district court erred in
granting Precision Valve’s motion for summary judgment on his
retaliation

claims.

To

establish
4

a

prima

facie

case

of

Appeal: 12-2449

Doc: 21

retaliation,
protected
[him],

Filed: 06/07/2013

Pepper

“must

activity,

and

(3)

(2)

prove

the

there

Pg: 5 of 6

was

that

employer
a

(1)

[]he

acted

causal

engaged

adversely

connection

in

against

between

protected activity and the asserted adverse action.”

a

the

Hoyle v.

Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321, 337 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pepper

argues that the district court erred in determining that the gap
of

ten

months

between

the

filing

of

his

lawsuit

and

his

termination was too long to establish causation between the two.
Pepper contends that his protected activity was not his filing
of

the

lawsuit

but,

rather,

his

continuing

pursuit

of

the

lawsuit, and, thus, that there was sufficient temporal proximity
to establish causation.

He identifies no authority for this

contention.
We conclude that Pepper’s protected activity was the
filing

of

his

lawsuit

connection

for

purposes

exists
against

where
an

activity.”

the

of

employer

employee
Price

against

Valve.

demonstrating

a

takes

adverse

after

learning

shortly

v.

Precision

Thompson,

380

F.3d

“[A]

prima

facie

employment
of

209,

causal

the
213

case

action

protected
(4th

Cir.

2004).

Generally, however, the passage of time alone cannot

provide

proof

of

causation

unless

the

“temporal

proximity

between an employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an
adverse employment action” was “very close.”
Dist.

v.

Breeden,

532

U.S.

268,
5

273

Clark County Sch.

(2001)

(per curiam)

Appeal: 12-2449

Doc: 21

(internal

Filed: 06/07/2013

quotation

terminated

ten

Precision

Valve,

causal

months

connection

termination.

marks

we

omitted).

after

conclude

between

Pg: 6 of 6

his

he
that

Because

filed

his

Pepper

filing

of

lawsuit

cannot
the

Pepper

was

against

establish

lawsuit

and

a

his

See id. (suggesting that three-to-four-month gap

was insufficient to prove causal connection).

Accordingly, we

hold that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment on Pepper’s retaliation claims.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6