Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 05-1134
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-04-519)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Mireya Soledad Lyle and Jessica Cubas (collectively
the plaintiffs) brought this action against their employer, the
County of Fairfax, Virginia (Fairfax County), alleging sex and
national
origin
discrimination,
retaliation,
and
hostile
work
I.
We
state
plaintiffs.
the
facts
Cubas
and
in
the
Lyle,
light
both
most
favorable
Hispanic-American
to
the
females,
Section
(Victim
Services)
of
the
Fairfax
Police
Department, a position that she has held since her hiring in 1998.
Plaintiff Lyle joined Victim Services in 2000 as a PCII and worked
with Cubas in that capacity until 2003.
Ellis
A.
In October 2002, while Cubas and Lyle were working together at
Victim Services, they were involved in a traffic accident in a
county vehicle.
J.A. 818.
At Sommerss urging,
Bearden also
concluded that Lyle had been untruthful during the course of his
investigation.
Lyles
termination.
Subsequently,
the
plaintiffs
filed
grievances with Fairfax County, alleging that Sommers and Ellis had
discriminated against them.
an
complaints.1
investigation
of
the
plaintiffs
discrimination
departmental
investigator
had
investigation
refused
regarding
to
consider
Elliss
1998
contentious
the
same
time
J.A. 1159.
Colonel
Manger
was
investigating
the
conducted
an
independent
review
of
the
accident
J.A. 856.
Deputy Chief
Lyles
vague
truthfulness
and
were
incomplete
reasonable
statements
J.A. 857.
given
Lyles
regarding
her
Accordingly, Manger
was
Not
Sustained.
J.A.
849-62.
Pursuant
to
No other disciplinary
B.
In April 2003, shortly after Manger and Rohrer had completed
their investigations, the Fairfax County Executive implemented a
County-wide reduction-in-force plan (RIF) in accordance with the
fiscal year 2004 budget.
outlined below.
In July 2002, several months prior to the accident and the
lodging of discrimination complaints, Fairfax Countys Director of
Management and Budget mandated that each County agency identify
workforce reductions of five percent as part of its fiscal year
2004 budget requests.3 Accordingly, in September 2002, the Fairfax
Police
budget,
Department
which
eliminated.
submitted
identified
its
anticipated
sixty-nine
fiscal
positions
that
year
2004
could
be
The remaining
forty-nine
positions
identified
for
possible
elimination
were
vacant.
Subsequently, in April 2003, the Fairfax County Executive
implemented the County-wide RIF in accordance with the recentlyapproved fiscal year 2004 budget.
County
Resources
agencies.
(HR)
regulations.
The
implemented
Countys
the
RIF
Department
according
of
to
Human
County
J.A. 699-701.
HR
J.A. 725.
the
Department
of
Systems
(Systems Management).
Management
for
Human
Services
J.A. 745.
As a
C.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed complaints with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging national origin
and gender discrimination.
Thereafter, in May
District
alleging
Court
for
discrimination
on
the
Eastern
the
District
basis
of
of
Virginia,
national
origin;
J.A. 11-15.
Concluding that
II.
The plaintiffs raise three issues on appeal. First, Cubas and
Lyle assert that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment
to
Fairfax
County
discrimination claims.
on
their
sex
and
national
origin
claim.
A.
The district court appropriately granted summary judgment to
the
defendant
on
the
discrimination claims.
plaintiffs
sex
and
national
origin
See Seabulk
Offshore, Ltd. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 377 F.3d 408, 418 (4th
Cir. 2004).
or
privileges
of
employment,
because
of
such
to
limit,
42
segregate,
or
classify
his
employees
or
affect
his
status
as
an
employee,
because
of
such
42
U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(2).
A plaintiff may establish a claim for sex or national origin
discrimination via two avenues of proof.
Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2004) (en
banc).
that
the
prohibited
characteristic
was
the
sole
10
James
v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir. 2004)
(internal citation omitted).
under
McDonnell
Douglas,
we
address
the
more
affects
plaintiffs
the
terms,
employment.
quotation omitted).
conditions,
James,
368
or
F.3d
benefits
at
376
of
the
(internal
However,
discriminatory
conduct
can
sometimes
Von Gunten v.
For discriminatory
as
material
such,
terms
that
of
conduct
the
must
plaintiffs
detrimentally
present
impact
employment
or
the
her
or
procedures.
exemption
from
[an
employers]
disciplinary
Further, an employers
for
promotion,
reassignment
to
new
position
Id. at 376.
resulted
from
the
defendants
12
discriminatory
animus.
First, Cubas and Lyle contend that Ellis assigned them heavier
caseloads
Services.
than
similarly
situated
PCII
employees
in
Victim
the
plaintiff,
an
African-American
electrical
In that
engineer,
Id.
13
Id.
Further, James
Id.
effect
on
his
professional
development.
opportunities
Id.
at
376.
for
promotion
Further,
the
or
court
Id.
Id.
Id. at 377.
The court
of
work
does
not
mean
14
an
employer
has
committed
an
Id.
James, 368
denied them the opportunity to work for overtime fails for the same
reason.
Although
denial
of
overtime
opportunities
could
not
occur
here.
Even
without
additional
overtime
in
terms
of
their
salaries,
pay
grades,
and
promotions.
The record also belies the plaintiffs allegation that the
defendant terminated Lyle from her position at Victim Services.
Indeed, the undisputed evidence indicates that as a result of a
15
County-wide
RIF,
the
defendant,
with
Lyles
authorization,
Id. at 376.
As this
applicable
employment
policies,
including
routine
plaintiffs
Department
investigates
do
not
dispute
accidents
that
involving
the
County
vehicles.
The
routinely
Further,
16
See id.
B.
The plaintiffs retaliation claim also fails because the
plaintiffs
did
not
suffer
an
adverse
employment
action.
To
accident
investigation,
polygraph examinations.
which
included
invasive
and
complaint,
not
because
of
an
overall
RIF.
Third,
the
assigning
them
additional
cases
while
the
accident
allegations
employment actions.
benefits
of
do
not
rise
to
the
of
adverse
employment
do
not
include
immunity
level
from
routine
action.
The
examinations
Police
during
Department
internal
routinely
utilizes
investigations,
and,
18
next
asserts
that
while
the
Department
was
still
implemented
County-wide
RIF
and
undertook
to
eliminate
elimination.
However,
HR
offered,
and
Lyle
accepted,
employees
for
false
statements
19
regarding
the
accident.
To
the contrary, the record indicates that Ellis gave Lyle a higher
performance rating for that part of 2003 when she still worked for
her at Victim Services than Lyles new supervisor at Systems
Management gave her for the remainder of 2003.
701.
sum,
the
overwhelming
evidence
indicates
that
the
Therefore, we affirm
C.
Although the plaintiffs asserted hostile work environment as
a fourth issue in their Docketing Statement, they did not list this
20
First,
On two other
occasions, Cubas alleges that Ellis stated that Cubass people are
very colorful.
remarks about Cubas having a baby, and treated her more harshly
after she returned from maternity leave.
that
Sommers
made
derogatory
remarks
about
her
gender.
App.s
Finally, Cubas and Lyle contend that Ellis did not allow
21
opening brief.
See
D.
Finally, plaintiff Cubas asserts a claim under the FLSA,
alleging that she worked overtime hours during her lunch breaks for
which she was never paid.
workweek for covered employees and mandates compensation at timeand-a-half for those weekly hours in excess of forty.
207(a).
29 U.S.C.
Id.
To
establish a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, the
plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1)
that she worked overtime hours without compensation; and (2) that
the employer knew (or should have known) that she had worked
overtime but did not compensate her for it.
and attendance sheets, she reported and was paid for three-and-ahalf hours of overtime for November 14, 2002, the first date for
which she now claims overtime.
other
occasions,
Cubas
did
J.A. 956.
not
work
required
forty-hour
workweek.7
Id.
alleges
have
worked
evidence
to
indicates
that
overtime
the
during
plaintiff
her
lunch
never
break,
sought
the
prior
these occasions, the defendant is not liable under the FSLA because
it did not have knowledge that Cubas had worked overtime on those
occasions. See Davis, 792 F.2d at 1276. Accordingly, the district
court properly granted summary judgment as to the FLSA claim.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED
24