Rachel Lynn PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-2195
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
May 9, 2011
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Parish had to prove: (1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2)[he] suffered adverse employment action; (3) [he] was performing [his] job duties at a level that met [his] employer‘s legitimate expectations at the time of the adverse employment action; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by similarly qualified applicants outside the protected class. Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 285 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc).
We conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that Parish failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination. While Parish is a member of a protected class, and did suffer an adverse employment action, he was not performing his duties at a level that met Siemens‘s legitimate expectations. The record is replete with examples of management dissatisfaction with Parish‘s performance. Kuhfahl, Mazuroski, and Walsh received frequent and harsh complaints from Parish‘s subordinates, his colleagues, and other groups in the organization. Mazuroski offered specific performance improvement guidelines, and Parish was simply unsuccessful at improving his performance to a level that met his employer‘s expectations. Under these facts, we see no error in the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Siemens.
Parish argues that he was meeting his employer‘s expectations, and offers statements from one of his subordinates and a fellow supervisor in support of his claim. As the district court noted, however, this evidence is not relevant to the question of whether, from the perspective of the employer, Parish was adequately performing his job duties. See Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 217 (4th Cir.2007) (“it is the perception of the decisionmaker which is relevant“).
Because Parish has not made out a prima facie case, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Leizer Z. Goldsmith, The Goldsmith Law Firm, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Tyler A. Brown, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Submitted: April 26, 2011.
Decided: May 9, 2011.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act are evaluated under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), “pre-
If the plaintiff is successful in establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Id. If the defendant provides evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the plaintiff, who bears the ultimate burden of persuasion, must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146-48, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Laber, 438 F.3d at 432.
Perry failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to CSC‘s failure to promote her because she could not show that she was qualified, as she lacked the global experience required by the position. Additionally, even assuming Perry could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, CSC met its burden of establishing a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting her, as the position she held at the time was limited to the company‘s United States operations and Perry lacked experience with its global activities. Because Perry did not meet her burden of establishing that CSC‘s stated reason is pretextual, we hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of CSC on this claim.
Perry‘s termination claims did not survive summary judgment because, as the district court held, CSC had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination, as it underwent a departmental reorganization and Perry was not available to meet its personnel needs. In the face of CSC‘s evidence that it reorganized to maximize efficiency and did so by eliminating Perry‘s position in favor of more highly skilled positions, Perry could not satisfy her burden to show that the reorganization was pretextual. See E.E.O.C. v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 942 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Perry‘s termination claims.
Finally, Perry contends that the district court erred when it held that Perry‘s termination did not violate the FMLA because, she argues, it did so in retaliation for her taking FMLA leave. It is unlawful for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under [the FMLA].”
The FMLA also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee for asserting rights under the Act.
Although Perry satisfies the first and second prong of the prima facie case, she has not produced any evidence showing a causal connection between her FMLA leave and her termination. Thus, we hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of CSC on Perry‘s FMLA retaliation claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court‘s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.