520 F. App'x 195
4th Cir.2013Background
- Landino, a senior intelligence officer, worked at the NRO under Janssen; he complained in 2007 of hostile work environment conduct by Janssen and Haller; 2008 retaliation complaint followed; he settled via a four-page Settlement Agreement releasing all claims and expunging a negative review; the Agency later told him he was ineligible for an NRO position due to the Settlement; Landino alleged in 2010 that discovery of March 2008 and April 2009 decisions were discriminatory and that NSEML placement was discriminatory; district court dismissed Counts I–IV with prejudice and Counts V–VII without prejudice; on appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviews Rule 12(b)(6) de novo and Rule 56(d)/59(e) for abuse of discretion; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement Agreement bars Count I. | Landino asserts unenforceability due to tainted process. | Agency argues valid, knowingly signed agreement. | Settlement binding; count barred. |
| Whether Counts II–III were timely and protected activity. | Counts II–III concern retaliation for protected activity. | Claims untimely under 45-day rule; no protected activity established. | Counts II–III untimely and not established as protected activity. |
| Whether Count IV premised on retaliation via NSEML placement is viable. | Discrimination claim linked to protected activity; retaliation occurred. | No protected activity; placement separate from prior complaints. | Count IV properly dismissed. |
| Whether denial of Rule 56(d) and Rule 59(e) motions was proper. | Needed discovery to oppose summary judgment. | Record already robust; discovery would not change outcome. | No abuse of discretion; motions denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Decohen v. Capital One, N.A., 703 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6))
- Melanson v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 281 F.3d 272 (1st Cir. 2002) (voluntariness of settlement under totality of circumstances)
- Balazs v. Liebenthal, 32 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (protected activity includes discrimination complaints; causal connection requires knowledge by employer)
- Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty, 145 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 1998) (causal link requires employer awareness of protected activity)
- Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222 (4th Cir. 1998) (elements of retaliation claim: protected activity, adverse action, causal link)
- Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076 (4th Cir. 1993) (Rule 59(e) standard; correct clear error or prevent injustice)
- Strag v. Bd. of Trustees, 55 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1995) (standard for denial of extension of time in district court proceedings)
- Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 56(d) rulings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)