Linda Lieving v. Pleasant Valley Hospital, Inc., No. 15-1463 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1463 LINDA LIEVING, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PLEASANT VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.; THOMAS SCHAUER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-27455) Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walt Auvil, RUSEN & AUVIL, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Arie M. Spitz, Brian J. Moore, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Linda favor of Schauer, Lieving appeals Pleasant PVH’s Valley Chief the grant Hospital, of Inc. Executive summary (“PVH”) Officer judgment and in Thomas (collectively, “Defendants”), in her employment discrimination action. Lieving alleged that Defendants fostered a hostile work environment in which she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code Ann. § 5-11-1 (2014). On appeal, Lieving argues that she suffered unwelcome conduct based on her sex and that such conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, “drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Inc., 793 F.3d marks omitted). 404, Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., 407 Summary (4th Cir. judgment 2015) is (internal only quotation appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Civ. P. 56(a). Fed. R. “[T]he nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of 2 evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013). Title against VII any prohibits individual an employer with respect from to “discriminat[ing] [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2012). Because “an employee’s work environment is a term or condition of employment, Title VII creates a hostile working environment cause of action.” Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, 775 F.3d 202, 207 (4th (internal Cir. 2014) quotation marks omitted). To establish a claim for a hostile work environment, an employee must show that she suffered “unwelcome” harassment that was based on her sex, was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions atmosphere,” Dal-Tile and Corp., of was 750 her employment imputable F.3d to 413, and her 420 create employer. (4th Cir. an abusive Freeman 2014) v. (internal quotation marks omitted). Harassment is based on an employee’s sex where, “‘but for’ the employee’s sex, he or she would not have been the victim of the discrimination.” Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 99 F.3d 138, 142 (4th Cir. 1996). In making this determination, “[t]he critical issue, Title VII’s text indicates, is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are 3 not exposed.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). After Lieving reviewing suffered the record, harassment based we find on her no evidence sex. There that is no reason to believe that were she not female, the alleged events at PVH would have transpired differently. complains of one incident aftermath of that incident. few sexually suggestive with another Lieving primarily employee and the But the incident, combined with a offhand comments by male executives during unrelated board meetings, is not sufficient to show that Lieving suffered discrimination based on her sex. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
