Adeline Benjamin v. Thomas Vilsack, No. 08-2152 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2152 ADELINE B. BENJAMIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS J. Agriculture, VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02990-DKC) Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: July 24, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ), on her claim alleging retaliation and Rights of Act discrimination 1964, 42 under U.S.C. § Title 2000e VII of (2006), the and Civil the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (2006). Benjamin Specialist with is the employed USDA. as Benjamin a Grants has filed and Agreement several Equal Employment Opportunity administrative complaints based on age, gender, and retaliation, all of which have been decided in favor of the USDA. Benjamin s prior complaint filed in the district court was dismissed on summary judgment, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Benjamin v. Veneman, 1 F. App x 192 (4th Cir. Mar. 8, 2007). The essential facts underlying this appeal are that Benjamin was suspended for fourteen days due to her failure to follow supervisory instructions. Benjamin filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which denied her claims. a complaint in the constituted adverse complaints, in district court district action violation granted of Thereafter, Benjamin filed court, in claiming retaliation the summary 2 ADEA and judgment for the filing Title in suspension VII. favor of prior The the employer, finding Benjamin failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to rebut the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the suspension offered by her employer. After conducting de novo review of the district court s grant of summary judgment, Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007), we find the undisputed material facts entitle the employer to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). Benjamin failed to establish a causal connection existed between the protected activity her prior complaints suspension. and the asserted adverse action her Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006); see also Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220, 229 (4th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Benjamin utterly failed to show that the employer s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the suspension were pretextual. See Matvia v. Bald Head Island Mgmt., Inc., 259 F.3d 261, 271 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Benjamin v. Vilsack, No. 8:07-cv-02990-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2008). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
