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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?