Adrian Muldrow v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2366
ADRIAN MULDROW,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
TWO FARMS, INC., d/b/a Royal Farms Store,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00519-WDQ)
Argued: September 17, 2013 Decided: October 18, 2013
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and John A. GIBNEY, Jr.,
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Jon Wyndal Gordon, LAW OFFICE OF J. WYNDAL GORDON, PA,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kathleen Pontone, MILES &
STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Stephanie K. Baron, Julie S. Siegel, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Muldrow filed suit under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and
42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and
hostile work environment claims. He now appeals from a district
court order granting summary judgment to his former employer,
Schmidt Baking Company, Inc. The district court held that
Muldrow failed to establish a prima facie case of race
discrimination, rebut Schmidt’s legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for terminating him, or establish a prima facie case of
a hostile work environment. We agree and affirm the judgment of
the district court.
I.
A.
We recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable to
Muldrow. See, e.g., Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559, 562 n.2
(4th Cir. 2006). In March 2006, Schmidt hired Muldrow, an
African American, as “general help.” J.A. 36-37. Schmidt
promoted him to route salesman in February 2007. On May 4,
2010, Schmidt suspended Muldrow pending termination and
subsequently fired him.
Between April 2008 and April 2010, Muldrow received two
verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, two letters of
3
concern, and counseling. In addition, Schmidt suspended Muldrow
in November 2009 for poor performance: among other shortcomings,
he had allegedly falsified company documents.
In the week preceding Muldrow’s May 4, 2010 suspension,
Schmidt Project Sales Manager Andrew Zinkand twice emailed Jodi
Sprenkle, Schmidt North East Depot Branch Manager, regarding
Muldrow’s conduct. On April 29, 2010, Zinkand notified Sprenkle
that Muldrow had delivered products to Royal Farms Store No. 15
before 6:00 a.m. in violation of store policy. Sprenkle
responded that she was “replacing him anyway.” J.A. 453. On
May 3, 2010, Zinkand emailed Sprenkle again after Muldrow was
caught allegedly falsifying a company document by signing his
own delivery ticket at Royal Farms Store No. 29--a ground for
immediate termination according to company policy.
On the morning of May 4, 2010, Muldrow entered Royal Farms
Store No. 15 for a delivery. According to Muldrow, Selina
Windsor, the store’s deli manager, “exploded” at him in a “loud
and embarrassing tone.” J.A. 419C. She allegedly said, “‘Who
the fuck does this Nigger think he’s talking to, I’m not
checking-in this Nigger.’” Id. (emphasis omitted). Shortly
thereafter, Muldrow reported the incident to Schmidt and Royal
Farms.
A few hours later, Zinkand conducted an investigation at
Royal Farms Store No. 15. At the time, no one corroborated what
4
Muldrow had reported to Schmidt. Zinkand also visited Royal
Farms Store No. 29, where Muldrow had allegedly falsified his
delivery ticket the previous day, as part of his investigation
of Muldrow’s claims and performance.
Muldrow met with Sprenkle that afternoon. According to
Muldrow, Sprenkle said that Muldrow had started a “forest fire”
by reporting the incident to Royal Farms. J.A. 238. Muldrow
also heard Sprenkle ask Sharon Crispens, Schmidt’s Director of
Human Resources, why Muldrow was being suspended. 1 Crispens
allegedly responded, “find something.” Id. Sprenkle then told
Muldrow that Schmidt was suspending him pending termination.
Muldrow filed a grievance of his suspension, and Schmidt
held a hearing on May 17, 2010. Schmidt terminated Muldrow the
same day.
B.
Following his suspension, Muldrow filed a complaint against
Schmidt and Royal Farms with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”). 2 On February 25, 2011, Muldrow sued both
companies for violations of Title VII and related claims.
1
Muldrow also described the question posed by Sprenkle as
“what am I to do with this?” J.A. 93. The district court
quotes this version of the question in its opinion. See J.A.
519.
2
Although Muldrow stated in his complaint that he received
a right to sue letter from the EEOC, the letter is not part of
the record on appeal. Nor did the parties provide details of
the EEOC investigation to the district court. See J.A. 521.
5
Muldrow and Schmidt stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice
of Muldrow’s claims against Royal Farms on February 17, 2012.
Muldrow and Schmidt then moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment to Schmidt.
With respect to Muldrow’s race discrimination claim, the court
found that Muldrow did not offer direct evidence of
discrimination. Muldrow also failed to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination because he did not show that he was
meeting Schmidt’s legitimate expectations at the time of his
termination. As to Muldrow’s retaliation claim, the court
concluded that Muldrow had established a prima facie case but
failed to rebut Schmidt’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for terminating him. Finally, the district court determined
that Muldrow did not establish a prima facie case with respect
to his hostile work environment claim because he did not show
that Windsor’s conduct was imputable to Schmidt. This appeal
followed.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant
summary judgment, “viewing the facts and reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to [Muldrow].” Bonds v.
Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is
appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
6
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
After having the benefit of oral argument and carefully
reviewing the briefs, record, and legal authorities, we conclude
that the district court’s analysis was substantially correct.
See Muldrow v. Schmidt Baking Co., No. WDQ-11-0519, 2012 WL
4838500 (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2012). 3 Muldrow failed to establish a
prima facie case of race discrimination or a hostile work
environment. With respect to the retaliation claim, Muldrow
failed to rebut Schmidt’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for his termination. Even accepting the “forest fire” and “find
something” comments as true, Schmidt conducted a good-faith
investigation of Muldrow’s claims and honestly believed that his
claims were not credible. When combined with the legitimate
ground for firing Muldrow (i.e., his poor performance), we agree
with the district court that summary judgment was also proper on
the retaliation claim.
The district court’s judgment is therefore
AFFIRMED.
3
Muldrow also challenges the district court’s denial of his
motion to strike. We find no error in this ruling.
7