Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 12-2449
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:10-cv-02532-MGL)
Submitted:
SHEDD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
June 7, 2013
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Monte Dexter Pepper appeals the district courts order
accepting
granting
the
recommendation
summary
Corporation
on
judgment
Peppers
of
in
the
magistrate
favor
of
discrimination
and
judge
and
Precision
Valve
retaliation
claims
We affirm.
judgment,
viewing
the
facts
and
drawing
reasonable
Summary
of
allegations
evidence
do
in
not
support
suffice,
of
[the
Anderson v.
Conclusory or
nor
does
nonmoving
mere
partys]
discrimination
motivated
Precision
Valves
adverse
shifting
framework
established
in
McDonnell
Douglas
Corp.
v.
Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2004) (en
banc).
first
required
to
establish
prima
facie
case
of
(2)
suffered
he
this
accordance
(4) the
suffered
adverse
with
the
circumstances
discrimination. *
an
adverse
action
despite
legitimate
gave
to
rise
the
action;
performing
employers
an
his
(3)
he
job
in
expectations;
inference
of
and
unlawful
employment
burden
shifts
to
the
employer
to
articulate
nondiscriminatory
reason
for
its
action,
the
the
ultimate
burden
of
persuasion,
must
show
by
preponderance
pretext
of
for
evidence
that
the
discrimination.
proffered
Reeves
v.
reason
Sanderson
was
Plumbing
Precision
demonstrating
that
expectations,
including
received
multiple
Valve
Pepper
provided
failed
to
meet
documentation
warnings
for
ample
its
showing
producing
evidence
legitimate
that
Pepper
defective
parts,
that
his
performance
was
unsatisfactory
prior
to
his
regarding
that
he
met
his
job
performance
Precision
We
Valves
are
insufficient
legitimate
to
performance
2003),
showing
district
of
we
conclude
that
discrimination.
court
did
not
he
cannot
Accordingly,
err
in
granting
make
we
prima
hold
summary
facie
that
judgment
the
on
claims.
To
establish
4
prima
facie
case
of
retaliation,
protected
[him],
Pepper
must
activity,
and
(3)
(2)
prove
the
there
was
that
employer
a
(1)
[]he
acted
causal
engaged
adversely
connection
in
against
between
the
Hoyle v.
Pepper
argues that the district court erred in determining that the gap
of
ten
months
between
the
filing
of
his
lawsuit
and
his
the
lawsuit
but,
rather,
his
continuing
pursuit
of
the
contention.
We conclude that Peppers protected activity was the
filing
of
his
lawsuit
connection
for
purposes
exists
against
where
an
activity.
the
of
employer
employee
Price
against
Valve.
demonstrating
takes
adverse
after
learning
shortly
v.
Precision
Thompson,
380
F.3d
[A]
prima
facie
employment
of
209,
causal
the
213
case
action
protected
(4th
Cir.
2004).
provide
proof
of
causation
unless
the
temporal
proximity
v.
Breeden,
532
U.S.
268,
5
273
(2001)
(per curiam)
(internal
quotation
terminated
ten
Precision
Valve,
causal
months
connection
termination.
marks
we
omitted).
after
conclude
between
his
he
that
Because
filed
his
Pepper
filing
of
lawsuit
cannot
the
Pepper
was
against
establish
lawsuit
and
his
Accordingly, we
hold that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment on Peppers retaliation claims.
We affirm the district courts judgment.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
AFFIRMED