Michael A. Watt v. Ray Mabu
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00128-LO-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999575999].. [14-1592]
Appeal: 14-1592
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/01/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1592
MICHAEL A. WATT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAY MABUS, Secretary, Department of the Navy,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00128-LO-JFA)
Submitted:
April 27, 2015
Decided:
May 1, 2015
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas F. Hennessy, VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY LAW OFFICE,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1592
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/01/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Watt appeals the district court’s order granting
the
Secretary
Watt’s
claims.
Title
of
the
VII ∗
Navy’s
motion
employment
for
summary
discrimination
and
judgment
on
retaliation
We affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Smith v.
Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
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).
Title
VII
prohibits
an
employer
from
“discriminat[ing]
against any of [its] employees . . . because [the employee] has
opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
[Title VII].”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2012).
Because Watt did
not present direct evidence of retaliation, the district court
analyzed
his
retaliation
shifting
framework
claim
established
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
in
under
the
McDonnell
familiar
Douglas
burdenCorp.
v.
Under this framework, a plaintiff
∗
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012).
2
Appeal: 14-1592
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/01/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
establishes a prima facie case of retaliation by demonstrating
“(1) engagement in a protected activity; (2) adverse employment
action; and (3) a causal link between the protected activity and
the employment action.”
Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626
F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010).
showing,
“the
burden
shifts
If the plaintiff makes such a
to
the
employer
to
establish
legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the action.”
Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 212 (4th Cir. 2004).
a
Price v.
If the employer
does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to “show that
the
employer’s
proffered
reasons
are
pretextual.”
Id.
Throughout this process, the employee bears the ultimate burden
of
establishing
cause
of
the
that
alleged
motivating factor.
his
protected
adverse
activity
action
and
was
was
a
not
“but-for”
merely
a
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133
S. Ct. 2517, 2532-34 (2013).
We have reviewed the record in
this case and find no reversible error in the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on Watt’s retaliation claim.
We next turn to Watt’s claim that the district court erred
in holding that his claims of a hostile work environment and
constructive discharge were barred by Watt’s failure to exhaust
his
claims
exceptional
through
the
circumstances,
administrative
this
Court
process.
generally
consider claims raised for the first time on appeal.
Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).
3
Absent
does
not
See In re
Watt offers no
Appeal: 14-1592
Doc: 38
explanation,
Filed: 05/01/2015
exceptional
or
Pg: 4 of 4
otherwise,
for
his
failure
to
address the issue of exhaustion either in his brief in response
to the motion for summary judgment or upon questioning by the
district court at the hearing on the motion.
Accordingly, we
decline to address the issue on appeal.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
this
Court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?