James Howard v. Lakeshore Equipment Company, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsJames Howard v. Lakeshore Equipment Company, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1772
JAMES HOWARD,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT
Materials,
COMPANY,
d/b/a
Lakeshore
Learning
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:10-cv-00985-RWT)
Submitted:
May 17, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
GREGORY,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
June 6, 2012
and
HAMILTON,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. BRANCH & ASSOCIATES,
PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John M. Remy, Matthew F.
Nieman, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James
granting
Howard
Company
summary
appeals
judgment
(Lakeshore)
on
the
in
district
favor
Howards
of
courts
Lakeshore
employment
order
Equipment
discrimination
claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 (2006) and his breach of implied
contract
second
claim,
and
amended
denying
complaint.
his
motion
Finding
for
no
leave
to
reversible
file
error,
a
we
affirm.
We review de novo a district courts order granting
summary
judgment,
inferences
nonmoving
viewing
therefrom
party.
in
Bonds
the
facts
the
v.
light
Leavitt,
and
drawing
most
629
reasonable
favorable
F.3d
Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 398 (2011).
369,
to
the
380
(4th
Summary judgment
shall be granted when there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of
law.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
56(a).
An
otherwise
properly
supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by
the
existence
facts
that
governing
judgment.
of
might
law
Id.
any
factual
affect
will
the
properly
dispute;
outcome
preclude
[o]nly
of
the
the
disputes
suit
entry
under
of
over
the
summary
Mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to
support the nonmoving partys case.
F.3d 313, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2010).
Erwin v. United States, 591
Because, as Howard concedes, he did not produce direct
or
circumstantial
evidence
that
race
discrimination
motivated
Lakeshores adverse action, he could avoid summary judgment only
through
the
burden-shifting
scheme
established
in
McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973).
Hill v.
Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284-85 (4th
Cir. 2004) (en banc); see Gairola v. Va. Dept of Gen. Servs.,
753
F.2d
1281,
1285-86
(4th
Cir.
1985)
(applying
McDonnell
Douglas approach to actions brought pursuant to 1981).
Under
the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff is first required
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, showing that
(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he suffered an
adverse employment action; (3) he suffered this adverse action
despite performing his job in accordance with the employers
legitimate expectations; and (4) the circumstances gave rise to
an inference of unlawful discrimination.
Adams v. Trustees of
the Univ. of N.C.Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2011).
If the plaintiff makes this showing, the burden shifts to the
employer
to
articulate
legitimate,
for the adverse employment action.
nondiscriminatory
reason
Hill, 354 F.3d at 285.
If
the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to
show
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
that
the
employers
stated reasons are a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Id.
Because Howard did not show that he met Lakeshores
legitimate
performance
expectations
or
that
the
circumstances
give rise to an inference of discrimination, we conclude that he
cannot
make
prima
facie
showing
of
race
discrimination.
Moreover, even if Howard could make a prima facie showing of
discrimination, he cannot rebut Lakeshores legitimate reasons
for terminating him and declining to hire him as Vice President,
as
he
has
not
shown
relationship
between
decisions and any discriminatory animus.
the
employment
Accordingly, we hold
that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment
on Howards race discrimination claims.
Howard
next
contends
that
statements
made
by
Lakeshore supervisor constituted an implied contract under which
Howard
could
promotion
if
return
he
conclude
that,
policy, *
the
allegedly
contract.
was
in
vague
made
to
are
the
position
unsuccessful
the
and
face
of
in
held
his
new
Lakeshores
unspecific
insufficient
he
to
rise
to
position.
explicit
statements
give
prior
the
to
his
We
at-will
supervisor
an
implied
See McKenzie v. Comcast Cable Comm., Inc., 393 F.
Because the policy was included in the Regional Manager
Policy Manual, which Lakeshores Human Resources Director
testified applied to Howard, Howards conclusory allegation that
the at-will policy did not apply to him is insufficient to
create a genuine dispute of material fact. See Erwin, 591 F.3d
at 319-20.
Supp. 2d 362, 369-70 (D. Md. 2005).
Thus, we hold that the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this
claim.
Finally,
Howard
complains
that
the
district
court
denied him leave to amend his complaint to add a claim pursuant
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
We
review for abuse of discretion a district courts denial of a
motion to amend.
Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602
F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010).
Although leave to amend should
be freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires, Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2), a district court has discretion to deny a motion to
amend
refus[e]
complaint,
to
grant
so
long
the
leave
as
the
court
without
any
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
does
not
justifying
outright
reason.
A district court may
deny a motion to amend when the amendment would be prejudicial
to the opposing party, when the moving party has acted in bad
faith, or when the amendment would be futile.
Laber v. Harvey,
438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Because
discrimination,
futile.
Howard
the
cannot
addition
of
succeed
a
Title
on
VII
claim
claim
of
race
would
be
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Howards motion.
For
the
courts judgment.
facts
and
legal
foregoing
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials before the court.
AFFIRMED
