Maureen Hill v. Chuck Hagel, No. 12-2515 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2515 MAUREEN HILL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CHUCK HAGEL, Hon. in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, Defendant Appellee, and MIKE MULLEN, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; DEMPSEY, GENERAL Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, MARTIN E. Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00350-LO-JFA) Argued: January 28, 2014 Decided: March 21, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Richard Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. David Moskowitz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Gary M. Gilbert, Kevin Lee Owen, Ari M. Wilkenfeld, LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Silver Spring, Maryland; John J. Rigby, MCINROY & RIGBY, LLP, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Bernard G. Kim, Assistant United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Deputy Chief, Civil Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Maureen Hill appeals a district court order granting judgment against her in her employment discrimination action. Finding no error, we affirm. I. Hill, January who 2005 is by an the African-American Defense woman, Department was hired Joint Staff to in be a Supervisory Technical Information Specialist in its Information Management Division. Hill s time with the Joint Staff was contentious, and she filed and litigated four separate Equal Employment giving Opportunity rise to four ( EEO ) EEO complaints reports of beginning investigation. in 2005, She was terminated in August 2007. Hill appealed her Protection Board ( MSPB ). termination to the Merit Systems An administrative law judge ( ALJ ) upheld the termination, and the MSPB subsequently issued a final order affirming the ALJ s MSPB s final order to decision. Hill the Employment Equal then appealed the Opportunity Commission, which affirmed the MSPB s decision and upheld Hill s termination. Hill subsequently filed suit in federal district court challenging the MSPB s decision as arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence and asserting a claim of a hostile work environment based on race and gender as well as 3 claims of race and gender discrimination and retaliation. Hill s claims concern many actions allegedly taken against her during her employment, including, among others, unfair evaluations; issuance of a performance improvement plan; removal of her supervisory duties; proposed and actual suspensions; leave restrictions; determinations that she was absent without leave; revocation of her security clearance; and her termination. The government moved to dismiss, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Hill s retaliation claim to the extent that it concerned the revocation of her security clearance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The government also moved for judgment on the pleadings hostile on her work environment portion of her retaliation claim. claim and another See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). And, the government moved for summary judgment on the entire action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The district court ruled in the government s favor on all claims. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Hill s retaliation claim to the extent challenged the revocation of her security clearance. also granted judgment on the pleadings hostile-work-environment claim. against it The court Hill on her Additionally, the court granted summary judgment against Hill on her discrimination claims and the remaining portion of her retaliation 4 claim. The court specifically ruled that Hill s challenges to her termination were time-barred and that Hill had failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to equitable tolling. and gender-based discrimination As for the other race- claims, the district court concluded that Hill failed to create a genuine factual issue concerning whether there was any causal nexus between her race or gender and any of the complained-of actions. Hill s retaliation claim, the district court And concerning concluded as a matter of law that with regard to each complained-of action, either Hill failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the actions causally were not related materially to the adverse, alleged the protected actions were conduct, or not the actions were supported by legitimate reasons. II. Having reviewed the parties submissions, the district court s memorandum opinion, and the applicable law, and having considered the parties oral arguments, we find no error and conclude that the district court properly disposed of all of Hill s claims. AFFIRMED 5
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.
