Gonzalez v. City of Alexandria

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2390
DAVID GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-04-159)
Submitted: May 27, 2005 Decided: June 9, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Orva Lee Boothby, LAW OFFICE OF LEE BOOTHBY, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. David Edward Constine, III, Mary Leslie Parpart,
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Gonzalez appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to his employer on his retaliation claim
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This court
reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1998).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts
in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, “[c]onclusory or
speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a ‘mere scintilla
of evidence.’” Thompson v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 312 F.3d
645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Phillips v. CSX Transp. Inc., 190
F.3d 285, 287 (4th Cir. 1999).
To prove a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that (1) he engaged in a protected activity;
(2) the employer took an adverse employment action against him; and
(3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and
the asserted adverse action. Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858,
863 (4th Cir. 2001). Once the plaintiff establishes the elements
of a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to proffer
evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for taking the
- 2 -
adverse employment action. See Matvia v. Bald Head Island Mgmt.,
Inc., 259 F.3d 261, 270 (4th Cir. 2001). If the employer carries
its burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered
were pretextual. Id.Here, the district court found that Gonzalez did not
demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation. Moreover, it held
that even had Gonzalez demonstrated a prima facie case, there was
“overwhelming evidence” that the employer provided a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for his termination from employment that
was not pretextual. We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’
briefs, the joint appendix, and the transcripts of the motion
hearing, and find no reversible error. See Gonzalez v. City of
Alexandria Dept of Human Servs., No. CA-04-159 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1,
2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -