Nitin Agrawal v. George Mason University ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1073 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1073
NITIN AGRAWAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01381-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: November 30, 2023 Decided: December 19, 2023
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nitin Agrawal, Appellant Pro Se. Eli Samuel Schlam, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1073 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Nitin Agrawal appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
George Mason University (“the University”) on Agrawal’s claim brought pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Agrawal contended
that the University denied him tenure as retaliation for supporting a colleague’s claim of
unlawful discrimination.
Absent direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must prove a Title VII
discrimination claim through the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation, a plaintiff must show “(i) that [he] engaged in protected activity, (ii) that [his]
employer took adverse action against [him,] and (iii) that a causal relationship existed
between the protected activity and the adverse employment activity.” Sempowich v. Tactile
Sys. Tech., Inc., 19 F.4th 643, 653 (4th Cir. 2021) (alterations and internal quotation marks
omitted). “Since, by definition, an employer cannot take action because of a factor of
which it is unaware, the employer’s knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in a protected
activity is absolutely necessary to establish the third element of the prima facie case.”
Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir.
1998).
If the plaintiff establishes his prima facie case, then the burden shifts to the employer
to demonstrate “a legitimate non-retaliatory reason” for its action. Sempowich, 19 F.4th at
654 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the employer satisfies this burden, then the
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1073 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s purportedly
neutral reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Id.
The district court found that Agrawal suffered an adverse employment action but
concluded that, even assuming Agrawal sufficiently established that he engaged in
protected activity, he had not shown a causal connection between the alleged protected
activity and the denial of his tenure. The court rejected Agrawal’s contention that in
denying his tenure, the final decisionmaker merely rubber-stamped recommendations that
were infected with retaliatory motive.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. Agrawal v. George Mason Univ., No. 1:20-cv-01381-AJT-IDD
(E.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2021). 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
3