Lakesha Chester v. US Security Associates

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1998
LAKESHA SHANTAY CHESTER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
US SECURITY ASSOCIATES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00204-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lakesha Shantay Chester, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen D. Dellinger,
Jade Cobb Murray, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lakesha S. Chester appeals the district court order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant U.S. Security
Associates in Chester’s employment discrimination suit. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm because Chester failed to present a viable claim of
sexual harassment or retaliation, as stated by the district
court in its oral order announced from the bench. See Univ. of
Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2528, 2533 (2013)
(holding that Title VII retaliation requires proof that desire
to retaliate was but-for cause of challenged employment action);
Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559, 567 (4th Cir. 2006) (recognizing
that “the law against harassment is not self-enforcing and an
employer cannot be expected to correct harassment unless the
employee makes a concerted effort to inform the employer that a
problem exists,” and that “when an employer’s remedial response
results in the cessation of the complained of conduct, liability
must cease” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted));
EEOC v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397, 405 (4th Cir.
2005) (describing required showing and burden-shifting scheme
for retaliation claims, including requirements that employee
show that protected activity is causally connected to adverse
employment action and that employer’s legitimate non-
discriminatory reason for challenged action is pretextual). We
2
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