Vidya Sagar v. Oracle Corporation, No. 12-2380 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2380 VIDYA SAGAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-2487 VIDYA SAGAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cv-03510-PJM) Submitted: April 23, 2013 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 2, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vidya Sagar, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Lori Hunt Turner, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Vidya Sagar filed a civil action against his former employer, Oracle Corporation ( Oracle ), alleging wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 2008 & Supp. 2012) appeals the Challenge ( ADEA ). In district court s Routine these Designation consolidated orders of denying appeals, his Confidential Motion and appeals the district court s order to Corrected Motion to Challenge Routine Designation of Confidential. also Sagar granting Sagar summary judgment in favor of Oracle and denying his cross-motion for summary judgment. In We affirm. appeal 12-2380, Sagar challenges the district court s denial of his motion and corrected motion to Challenge Routine Designation of Confidential. This court gives district courts wide latitude in controlling discovery and will not disturb discovery orders absent a showing of clear abuse of Sagar also challenges the magistrate judge s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to compel discovery. Sagar s notice of appeal, however, failed to designate the magistrate judge s order denying his motion for reconsideration as an order for which he sought review, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). Moreover, because it does not appear from the record that the parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge, and Sagar did not appeal the magistrate judge s order to the district court, the magistrate judge s order is not subject to appellate review in this court. 3 discretion. Rowland v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 340 F.3d 187, 195 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Sagar does not assert that he has been unable to access Oracle s records or demonstrate that the documents at issue are not sensitive in nature, he fails to establish that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant his motions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s denial of Sagar s motions. This Court reviews a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that 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). outcome of Only disputes over facts that might affect the the suit under the governing preclude the entry of summary judgment. Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). for summary Fed. R. judgment, the law will properly Anderson v. Liberty To withstand a motion non-moving party must produce competent evidence to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Co., 312 speculative F.3d 645, See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power 649 allegations do (4th not 4 Cir. 2002) suffice, ( Conclusory nor does a or mere scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party s] case. (internal quotation marks omitted)). The ADEA forbids an employer . . . to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, § 623(a) because of (2006). discrimination, such Absent this individual s direct Court age. evidence analyzes ADEA 29 of U.S.C. intentional claims under the burden-shifting framework established for Title VII claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 513-14 (4th Cir. 2006). Under this framework, Sagar must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. 513. Id. at To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Sagar must demonstrate that: (1) he is a member of the protected class; (2) legitimate he was qualified expectations; for the job he was discharged (3) and met [Oracle] s despite his qualifications and performance; and (4) following his discharge, he was replaced by a substantially comparable qualifications. If shifts to a prima Oracle case is demonstrate established, a the legitimate, discriminatory reason for Sagar s termination. at 513-14. individual with Id. facie to younger burden non- Warch, 435 F.3d If Oracle meets this burden, the presumption of 5 discrimination created by the prima facie case disappears from the case and the plaintiff must justification is pretextual. prove that the proffered Id. at 514 (internal quotation marks omitted). After review of the record and the parties briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Oracle. stage because he does Sagar s claims fail at the prima facie not offer any evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that, at the time of his discharge, he was meeting Oracle s legitimate expectations. Sagar also fails to establish that, following his discharge, he was replaced by a substantially younger individual with comparable qualifications. Further, even assuming, as the district court did, that Sagar made a prima facie showing, he fails to establish that Oracle s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging him were a pretext for intentional discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6

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.