Latif v. The Community College of Baltimore , 354 F. App'x 828 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2023
SAMIR LATIF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF BALTIMORE,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
IRVING MCPHAIL; ANDREW JONES; JAMES KLEIN; RODERICK PULLEN;
JEFFREY C. HAHN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cv-02648-RDB)
Argued: October 28, 2009 Decided: December 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and Anthony J.
TRENGA, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Robert Elmer Cappell, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant.
Clifford Bernard Geiger, KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, PA, Timonium,
Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Peter S. Saucier, KOLLMAN &
SAUCIER, PA, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Samir Latif brought a hostile work environment claim based
on national origin and a retaliation claim under Title VII, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (2006), against his former employer,
the Community College of Baltimore. The district court granted
summary judgment to the College on both claims. We affirm for
the reasons that follow.
Latif was employed as a full-time assistant professor at
the College from September 2002 until he was discharged in March
2005. During that time, he received a series of threats related
to his nationality. The district court carefully recited the
facts surrounding these events in its memorandum opinion, and we
adopt its account by reference. See Latif v. Cmty. Coll. of
Balt., No. RDB 05-2648, slip op. at 2-10 (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2008).
Latif first claims that he was the victim of a hostile work
environment based on his national origin. But, as the district
court found, any hostile work environment cannot be imputed to
the College, which took reasonable corrective action to address
the threats against him. As the district court explained:
The threats made against Latif were very serious and
warranted a serious response by the College. The
evidence is undisputed in this case that the College
did respond. It investigated each of the incidents
internally, reported the threats to the Baltimore
County Police Department (which also investigated),
sent campus-wide emails asking for people to preserve
and turn in any evidence of hate crimes, and offered
protective measures to Latif. The College removed
3
certain students from his classes, provided campus
escorts, and asked the police to conduct periodic
check-ins at his residence. The only reason that the
culprits were not punished or criminally prosecuted
was that there was no one to take action against. The
telephone message was left using a public pay phone,
and the notes and flyer were left in public places
that could be accessed by virtually the entire
community. Despite thorough investigations, neither
the campus security team nor the police could identify
the individuals responsible for the threats.
Id. at 20 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Latif next claims that the College fired him in retaliation
for a grievance he filed with the College and a discrimination
charge he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. However, the district court found as a matter of
law that was not that case. The College produced several
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Latif. As the
district court explained:
[The College] considered the sexual harassment charges
levied against Latif by Kerry Holton, as well as the
other female students interviewed during the
investigation who mentioned inappropriate comments
Latif made to them. Also considered was Latif’s use
of class time to discuss the cross-complaints of
sexual harassment and ask students to be witnesses.
The use of a college computer to look at pornography
and dating sites was a clear violation of the internet
policy. Finally, Latif exhibited a pattern of
disruptive behavior in late 2004 and early 2005
ranging from accusing Public Security of forging
documents to criticizing the woman who conducted his
teaching evaluation.
Id. at 24-25.
4
Latif has not shown that these reasons were pretext for
retaliation. As the district court observed, Latif does “not
point to any specific evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact aside from his own affidavit which, . . . offers
many conclusions that are not based on his own personal
knowledge.” Id. at 26.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.
5