Cacie Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999827384]. [15-2175]

Appeal: 15-2175

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2175

CACIE BIDDLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FAIRMONT SUPPLY COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CONSOL ENERGY, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Decided:

May 19, 2016

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amanda J. Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN P.
Virginia, for Appellant.
Larry J. Rector,
PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, Denielle M.
JOHNSON, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for

NEW, Beckley, West
STEPTOE & JOHNSON,
Stritch, STEPTOE &
Appellee.

Appeal: 15-2175

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2175

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Cacie Biddle filed suit in state court alleging Fairmont
Supply Company (“Fairmont”) unlawfully terminated her employment
under

West

Rights

Act

Virginia
(WVHRA).

discrimination,
claims.

common

law

and

the

Specifically,

retaliation,

and

West

Biddle

hostile

Virginia
alleged

work

Human
gender

environment

Fairmont removed the action to district court.

Biddle

now appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
to Fairmont on all claims.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the
light

most

favorable

to

the

nonmoving

party.

Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014).

Smith

v.

Summary judgment

is appropriate when “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.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The

relevant inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
one-sided

that

one

party

must

prevail

as

a

matter

of

law.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the material submitted in the joint appendix, and the
district

court’s

order,

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
3

Appeal: 15-2175

court.

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Co., No. 1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK

(N.D. W. Va. Sept. 24, 2015).

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