Dennett v. Anne Arundel County

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1475
JOHN N. DENNETT; GRAFTON G. DIETZ, JR.;
STEPHANIE DIETZ; BRIAN L. BOND, and all other
employees of the Anne Arundel County Fire
Department similarly situated; KAREN ESTEPP;
MICHELE DELALLA; MARA L. EICENS; KENNETH L.
PARDOE; MICHAEL CONNOR; PETER G. STALEY;
STEVEN K. FRYE; MARIANNE C. ANDERSON; JAMES
DAVID KRUGER; MICHAEL J. MARSIGLIA; CECILIA
WARREN; DAVID WILLIAMS; ROLAND K. FINK, JR.;
DOUGLAS G. FISHEL, JR.; FRANK R. STAMM; KEITH
D. SWINDLE; JOHN STEVEN THOMPSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-96-1448-B)
Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: May 1, 2000
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francis J. Collins, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A., Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellants. Linda M. Schuett, County Attorney, John F.
Breads, Jr., Senior Assistant County Attorney, Annapolis, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting Anne
Arundel County’s second motion for reconsideration and its motion
for summary judgment on Appellants’ claim of unlawful retaliation
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). See 29 U.S.C.
§ 215(a)(3). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error.
We conclude Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case
of retaliation under the FLSA. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Conner v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 121 F.3d
1390, 1394 (10th Cir. 1997) (applying McDonnell Douglas burden-
shifting scheme to FLSA retaliation claim). Furthermore, even if
Appellants established a prima facie case for retaliation, they
failed to show the County’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its actions was pretextual. See Texas Dep't of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-54 (1981).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order based upon
its reasoning stated from the bench. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3