Noah Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, No. 12-2170 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2170 NOAH NATHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., f/k/a Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:11-cv-01360-AJT-TRJ) Argued: September 19, 2013 Decided: October 24, 2013 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and Samuel G. WILSON, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: James Alfred Bell, IV, BELL & BELL LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Dana Lewis Rust, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Christian B. Nagel, FLUET, HUBER & HOANG, PLLC, Lake Ridge, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephanie B. Karn, Edward M. Eakin, III, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by Noah Nathan ( Nathan ) from the entry of summary judgment on his claims against Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively referred to as Takeda ) for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (2012). court found Nathan s In a published memorandum decision, the district that claims Takeda that was entitled Takeda: (1) to summary discriminated judgment against on him because of his status as a male caregiver; (2) subjected him to a hostile work environment; and (3) retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity. We affirm. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 398 (2011). Summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). addition, we must review the evidence in the light In most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In consideration of this standard, we have carefully reviewed the issues, the record, the law, and the arguments we have heard and conclude that there is little that we can add to 3 the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the district court. Thus, we affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. See Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2d 629 (E.D. Va. 2012). 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.