Monte Pepper v. Precision Valve Corporation, No. 12-2449 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2449 MONTE DEXTER PEPPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PRECISION VALVE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02532-MGL) Submitted: May 31, 2013 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 7, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Hutson, MELVIN HUTSON, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald W. Belcher, TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Monte Dexter Pepper appeals the district court s order accepting granting the recommendation summary Corporation on judgment Pepper s of in the magistrate favor of discrimination and judge and Precision Valve retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 2000e-2000e-17 (West 2012). We affirm. We review de novo a district court s order granting summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate 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). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). speculative scintilla case. of allegations evidence do in not support suffice, of [the Anderson v. Conclusory or nor does nonmoving a mere party s] Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Pepper did not produce direct evidence that racial discrimination motivated Precision Valve s adverse actions against him, we analyze his claims under the burden2 shifting framework established in McDonnell Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973). Douglas Corp. v. See Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, an employee is first required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, showing that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) suffered he this accordance (4) the suffered adverse with the circumstances discrimination. * an adverse action despite legitimate gave to rise the action; performing employer s an (3) job his he in expectations; inference of and unlawful Adams v. Trs. of the Univ. of N.C. Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2011). showing, employment burden shifts to If the employee makes this the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. evidence Hill, 354 F.3d at 285. of a nondiscriminatory If the employer provides reason for its action, the presumption of discrimination is rebutted, and the employee, who bears the ultimate burden of * persuasion, must show by a We decline Pepper s invitation to adopt the holding of Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 493-94 (D.C. Cir. 2008). See Stallworth v. Singing River Health Sys., 469 F. App x 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (declining to adopt Brady); Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 523 F.3d 1187, 1202 n.12 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to adopt Brady and reserv[ing] the right to undertake each step of the Supreme Court s McDonnell Douglas framework in analyzing discrimination and retaliation claims on summary judgment ). 3 preponderance pretext of for evidence that the discrimination. proffered Reeves v. reason Sanderson was a Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 146-49 (2000). Here, Precision demonstrating that expectations, including received multiple Valve Pepper provided failed to meet documentation warnings for ample evidence its showing legitimate Pepper defective producing that parts, unexcused absences, tardiness, improperly clocking in or out, and not being at his machine at the beginning of his shift. Pepper argues on appeal that Precision Valve cannot logically claim that his performance was unsatisfactory prior to his termination because Precision Valve continued to employ him for a time after recognizing deficiencies in his performance. find this argument unpersuasive. statements show regarding that he met his job Because Pepper s self-serving performance Precision We Valve s are insufficient legitimate to performance expectations, see King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 149-50 (4th Cir. 2003), showing district of we conclude that discrimination. court did not he cannot Accordingly, err in granting make we a prima hold summary facie that judgment the on Pepper s racial discrimination claims. Pepper next argues that the district court erred in granting Precision Valve s motion for summary judgment on his retaliation claims. To establish 4 a prima facie case of retaliation, protected [him], Pepper must activity, and (3) (2) prove the there was that employer a (1) []he acted causal engaged adversely connection in against between protected activity and the asserted adverse action. a the Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321, 337 (4th Cir. 2011). Pepper argues that the district court erred in determining that the gap of ten months between the filing of his lawsuit and his termination was too long to establish causation between the two. Pepper contends that his protected activity was not his filing of the lawsuit but, rather, his continuing pursuit of the lawsuit, and, thus, that there was sufficient temporal proximity to establish causation. He identifies no authority for this contention. We conclude that Pepper s protected activity was the filing of his lawsuit connection for purposes exists against where an activity. the of employer employee Price against Valve. demonstrating a takes adverse after learning shortly v. Precision Thompson, 380 F.3d [A] prima facie employment of 209, causal the 213 case action protected (4th Cir. 2004). Generally, however, the passage of time alone cannot provide proof of causation unless the temporal proximity between an employer s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action was very close. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 5 273 Clark County Sch. (2001) (per curiam) (internal quotation terminated ten Precision Valve, causal months connection termination. marks we omitted). after conclude between his he that Because filed his Pepper filing of lawsuit cannot the Pepper was against establish lawsuit and a his See id. (suggesting that three-to-four-month gap was insufficient to prove causal connection). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Pepper s retaliation claims. We affirm the district court s judgment. 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 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.