Linda Lieving v. Pleasant Valley Hospital, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-27455 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999730667].. [15-1463]

Appeal: 15-1463

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1463

LINDA LIEVING,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PLEASANT VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.; THOMAS SCHAUER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-27455)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

January 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walt Auvil, RUSEN & AUVIL, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Arie M. Spitz, Brian J. Moore, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1463

Doc: 25

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Linda
favor

of

Schauer,

Lieving

appeals

Pleasant
PVH’s

Valley
Chief

the

grant

Hospital,

of
Inc.

Executive

summary
(“PVH”)

Officer

judgment
and

in

Thomas

(collectively,

“Defendants”), in her employment discrimination action.

Lieving

alleged that Defendants fostered a hostile work environment in
which she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the West Virginia Human
Rights

Act,

W.

Va.

Code

Ann.

§

5-11-1

(2014).

On

appeal,

Lieving argues that she suffered unwelcome conduct based on her
sex and that such conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive
to constitute a hostile work environment.
We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo,
“drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party.”
Inc.,

793

F.3d

marks

omitted).

404,

Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am.,

407

Summary

(4th

Cir.

judgment

2015)
is

(internal

only

quotation

appropriate

when

“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).

Fed. R.

“[T]he nonmoving party must rely on more than

conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one
inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of

2

Appeal: 15-1463

Doc: 25

evidence.”

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir.

2013).
Title
against

VII

any

prohibits

individual

an

employer

with

respect

from
to

“discriminat[ing]

[her]

compensation,

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s . . . sex.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2012).

Because “an employee’s work environment is a term or condition
of employment, Title VII creates a hostile working environment
cause of action.”

Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, 775 F.3d 202, 207

(4th

(internal

Cir.

2014)

quotation

marks

omitted).

To

establish a claim for a hostile work environment, an employee
must

show

that

she

suffered

“unwelcome”

harassment

that

was

based on her sex, was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter
the

conditions

atmosphere,”
Dal-Tile

and

Corp.,

of
was
750

her

employment

imputable
F.3d

to

413,

and

her

420

create

employer.

(4th

Cir.

an

abusive

Freeman

2014)

v.

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
Harassment is based on an employee’s sex where, “‘but for’
the employee’s sex, he or she would not have been the victim of
the discrimination.”

Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 99

F.3d 138, 142 (4th Cir. 1996).

In making this determination,

“[t]he critical issue, Title VII’s text indicates, is whether
members

of

one

sex

are

exposed

to

disadvantageous

terms

or

conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are
3

Appeal: 15-1463

Doc: 25

not exposed.”

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523

U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After
Lieving

reviewing

suffered

the

record,

harassment

based

we

find

on

her

no

evidence

sex.

There

that
is

no

reason to believe that were she not female, the alleged events
at PVH would have transpired differently.
complains

of

one

incident

aftermath of that incident.
few

sexually

suggestive

with

another

Lieving primarily
employee

and

the

But the incident, combined with a

offhand

comments

by

male

executives

during unrelated board meetings, is not sufficient to show that
Lieving suffered discrimination based on her sex.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendants.

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

4