Maureen Hill v. Leon Panetta
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00350-LO-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999320094].. [12-2515]
Appeal: 12-2515
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/21/2014
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2515
MAUREEN HILL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHUCK HAGEL, Hon. in his official capacity as Secretary,
U.S. Department of Defense,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
MIKE MULLEN, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs;
DEMPSEY, GENERAL – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
MARTIN
E.
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00350-LO-JFA)
Argued:
January 28, 2014
Decided:
March 21, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Richard Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD T.
SEYMOUR,
PLLC,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Appellant.
David
Moskowitz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Gary M. Gilbert, Kevin Lee
Appeal: 12-2515
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/21/2014
Pg: 2 of 5
Owen, Ari M. Wilkenfeld, LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT &
ASSOCIATES, PC, Silver Spring, Maryland; John J. Rigby, MCINROY
& RIGBY, LLP, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Bernard G. Kim, Assistant
United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Deputy Chief, Civil
Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 12-2515
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/21/2014
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Maureen
Hill
appeals
a
district
court
order
granting
judgment against her in her employment discrimination action.
Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
Hill,
January
who
2005
is
by
an
the
African-American
Defense
woman,
Department
was
hired
Joint
Staff
to
in
be
a
Supervisory Technical Information Specialist in its Information
Management
Division.
Hill’s
time
with
the
Joint
Staff
was
contentious, and she filed and litigated four separate Equal
Employment
giving
Opportunity
rise
to
four
(“EEO”)
EEO
complaints
reports
of
beginning
investigation.
in
2005,
She
was
terminated in August 2007.
Hill
appealed
her
Protection Board (“MSPB”).
termination
to
the
Merit
Systems
An administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
upheld the termination, and the MSPB subsequently issued a final
order
MSPB’s
affirming
the
ALJ’s
final
order
to
decision.
Hill
the
Employment
Equal
then
appealed
the
Opportunity
Commission, which affirmed the MSPB’s decision and upheld Hill’s
termination.
Hill
subsequently
filed
suit
in
federal
district
court
challenging the MSPB’s decision as arbitrary, capricious, and
unsupported by substantial evidence and asserting a claim of a
hostile work environment based on race and gender as well as
3
Appeal: 12-2515
Doc: 47
claims
of
Filed: 03/21/2014
race
and
gender
Pg: 4 of 5
discrimination
and
retaliation.
Hill’s claims concern many actions allegedly taken against her
during
her
employment,
including,
among
others,
unfair
evaluations; issuance of a performance improvement plan; removal
of
her
supervisory
duties;
proposed
and
actual
suspensions;
leave restrictions; determinations that she was absent without
leave;
revocation
of
her
security
clearance;
and
her
termination.
The government moved to dismiss, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, Hill’s retaliation claim to the extent that it
concerned the revocation of her security clearance.
See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
The government also moved for judgment on the
pleadings
hostile
on
her
work
environment
portion of her retaliation claim.
claim
and
another
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
And, the government moved for summary judgment on the entire
action.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
The district court ruled in the government’s favor on all
claims.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction
Hill’s
retaliation
claim
to
the
extent
challenged the revocation of her security clearance.
also
granted
judgment
on
the
pleadings
hostile-work-environment claim.
against
it
The court
Hill
on
her
Additionally, the court granted
summary judgment against Hill on her discrimination claims and
the
remaining
portion
of
her
retaliation
4
claim.
The
court
Appeal: 12-2515
Doc: 47
specifically
Filed: 03/21/2014
ruled
that
Pg: 5 of 5
Hill’s
challenges
to
her
termination
were time-barred and that Hill had failed to demonstrate that
she was entitled to equitable tolling.
and
gender-based
discrimination
As for the other race-
claims,
the
district
court
concluded that Hill failed to create a genuine factual issue
concerning whether there was any causal nexus between her race
or gender and any of the complained-of actions.
Hill’s
retaliation
claim,
the
district
court
And concerning
concluded
as
a
matter of law that with regard to each complained-of action,
either Hill failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the
actions
causally
were
not
related
materially
to
the
adverse,
alleged
the
protected
actions
were
conduct,
or
not
the
actions were supported by legitimate reasons.
II.
Having
reviewed
the
parties’
submissions,
the
district
court’s memorandum opinion, and the applicable law, and having
considered the parties’ oral arguments, we find no error and
conclude that the district court properly disposed of all of
Hill’s claims.
AFFIRMED
5
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?