Susan ENGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jacqueline Hamrick; Antoanna Romaniuk, Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and Harris RF Communications Division (Harris RFCD), Defendant.
No. 14-1444
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Argued: Sept. 16, 2015. Decided: Oct. 8, 2015.
622 F. App‘x 165
We find that Pronin has failed to put forth any evidence of discriminatory intent, aside from the bare fact that he is Jewish and his cellmate and the officer are Hispanic. Pronin cites no relevant statements or similar history on the part of Olivera-Negron. Finally, Pronin has provided no details from which to determine whether he and his cellmate were similarly situated. Accordingly, the district court correctly ruled that Pronin‘s claim could not survive summary judgment.
V.
We have reviewed the remainder of Pronin‘s claims, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the district court‘s order for the reasons stated by the district court. Pronin v. Johnson, No. 5:12-cv-03416-DCN, 2015 WL 1518380 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2015). Based on the foregoing reasoning, we vacate the district court‘s grant of summary judgment on Pronin‘s denial of access to courts claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The rest of the district‘s order is affirmed. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In this
I.
A.
On September 5, 2006, Engler began working for Harris as a first-level contracts manager in Harris‘s Columbia, Maryland office. Harris is a defense contractor and communications and information technology company headquartered in Rochester, New York. Harris hired Engler to support the Communications Security Products (“CSP“) group within the company‘s RF Communications Division (“RFCD“). Engler is the only contracts manager ever employed in the Columbia office. Harris created the position anticipating an increase in CSP business from
During the first year of her employment, Engler created an informal meeting group called “Women in Business.” The organization served as a support system for female employees seeking career advancement within the company. In August 2008, several women in the group asked Engler to speak with RFCD‘s president Dana Mehnert about “mistreatment by the male employees.” J.A. 1116-17. Engler relayed the grievance to her immediate supervisor Paul Wilson, who subsequently brought the issue to Mehnert‘s attention. Mehnert ordered an internal investigation of the matter in March 2009.
Meanwhile, CSP‘s anticipated surge in Defense Department business failed to materialize. RFCD reported a thirty-seven percent drop in sales for the first three quarters of 2009. From January 2009 to March 2009, RFCD decreased its projected revenue for the upcoming fiscal year by nearly $200 million. In May 2009, RFCD forecast a $230 million reduction in revenue from Department of Defense contracts. J.A. 198.
In light of these economic challenges, Harris executives determined that “significant restructuring” through the use of a RIF was necessary. J.A. 199. Harris considered 1,900 RFCD employees for inclusion in the RIF. To evaluate those individuals, Harris utilized a process known as Banding Analysis, which organized employees according to job function and as-
Harris considered two RFCD contracts managers for inclusion in the RIF—Engler and a male senior contracts manager from the Rochester office. Harris executives believed it economically imprudent to retain both positions; other personnel were capable of absorbing any work that could not be accomplished by a single manager. The contracts manager in Rochester held a position one level senior to Engler, received a higher Banding Analysis score, and had at least two more years of experience.
Ultimately, Harris dismissed a total of 179 employees as a result of the RIF. Ninety-seven of those employees were involuntarily released—seventy-one men and twenty-six women. Engler was one of six people, four men and two women, discharged from the Columbia office. J.A. 628.
B.
In her
II.
Even assuming arguendo that Engler can demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation, we agree with the district court that Engler failed to present sufficient evidence that Harris‘s nondiscriminatory reasons for firing her—Harris‘s economic reversals and Engler‘s declining performance—were pretextual. The Supreme Court has made clear that to be pretextual, a reason must be false and wrongful animus must be “a but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2532-34, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013); see Foster v. Univ. of Maryland-Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243, 253 (4th Cir.2015). Engler has not satisfied that requirement.
Engler asserts that she was terminated because she raised concerns about gender discrimination in the Columbia office. This bare assertion fails to create an issue of triable fact. As the district court noted, “the CSP group, for which Engler was hired to provide support, was experiencing a downward trend in projected revenue and profit.” Engler, 2014 WL 1370320 at *6. Indeed, management had forecast a nearly $200 million decline in revenue for fiscal year 2010. Ante at 166. No less than 179 men and women were laid off. Engler has not put forth any evidence showing that Harris‘s poor financial outlook was a bogus projection or that terminating her employment was anything other than a legitimate business decision of a company that had fallen on hard times. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 513 (4th Cir.1994) (employment discrimination statutes are “not intended to obstruct the ability of a commercial enterprise to make necessary adjustments in the face of economic challenges.“).
Moreover, “Engler‘s declining performance in the months preceding the RIF is well documented in various email communications.” Engler, 2014 WL 1370320 at *7. From late 2008 until the RIF, Harris management expressed concerns about Engler‘s productivity, efficiency, and willingness to work effectively with co-workers and customers. This court has made clear that “[j]ob performance ... [is] widely recognized as [a] valid, non-discriminatory bas[is] for any adverse employment decision.” Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir.1996).
Furthermore, “Engler offers no evidence to establish that the Banding Analysis was not consistently employed as to all employees considered for the RIF.” Engler, 2014 WL 1370320 at *7. Engler has failed to place into genuine dispute her belief that she deserved a higher score in the Banding Analysis categories or that on a comparative basis she was a more deserving candidate for retention than the contracts manager who was not dismissed. Simply put, the contracts manager in Rochester “was the better qualified candidate for the position sought“—he had more experience, a more senior position, and a better Banding Analysis score than Engler. Evans, 80 F.3d at 960; see also id. at 960-61 (“It is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not the self-assessment of the plaintiff.“).
Finally, “Harris employees located in the Rochester office absorbed Engler‘s duties, and no contracts manager has been hired or assigned to the Columbia office since the RIF.” Engler, 2014 WL 1370320 at *8. The fact that other employees could assume additional tasks only bolsters Harris‘s contention that Engler‘s position was expendable. See, e.g., Roge v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 257 F.3d 164, 171 n. 2 (2d Cir.2001). While Engler suggests that it would ultimately have been more cost-ef-
III.
Based substantially on the reasons given in the district court‘s opinion, we affirm the judgment entered in favor of Harris on Engler‘s
AFFIRMED.