Frederick Felt v. MEI Technologies, Inc., No. 14-1079 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1079 FREDERICK FELT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; DELL SERVICES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02873-JFM) Submitted: September 29, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 7, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mitchell I. Batt, SULLIVAN TALBOTT & BATT, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Joanna Lee Faust, Timothy Joseph McEvoy, CAMERON MCEVOY, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia; Joel Jacob Borovsky, Teresa Burke Wright, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick Felt appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of MEI Technologies, Inc., ( MEI ) and Dell Services Federal Government, Inc., on his claims of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ( Title VII ), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), the Maryland George s County Code. Human Relations Act, and the Prince We affirm. We review de novo a district court s order granting summary judgment. D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Comm rs, 706 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 2013). appropriate where there is no genuine Balt. Bd. of Sch. Summary judgment is dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Inc., Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we view the facts, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom, favorable to the nonmoving party. in the light most Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. 251-52. Anderson, 477 U.S. at An otherwise properly supported summary judgment motion 2 will not be defeated by the existence of some factual dispute, however; only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. at 248. Felt first argues that there is sufficient evidence to establish that he was terminated in retaliation for protected activity. Because retaliation, familiar his Felt Title burden-shifting presented VII no claims framework direct are evidence analyzed established Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 380 F.3d 209, 212 (4th Cir. 2004). under in of the McDonnell Price v. Thompson, A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation by demonstrating that: (1) he engaged in a adverse action protected against activity; him; (2) and the (3) defendant there connection between the first two elements. was took a an causal Id. at 212. If a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the basis defendant for the to articulate action. Id. a Once legitimate, this nonretaliatory burden is met, the plaintiff must show that the proffered reasons are pretextual. Id. Throughout this process, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of establish[ing] that . . . h[is] protected activity was a but-for employer. cause of the alleged adverse action by the Univ. Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2534 (2013). 3 We facie case conclude of that retaliation Felt failed under Title to establish VII, as he a prima did not demonstrate a causal connection between his discharge and his protected activity. The record reflects that the two MEI personnel identified by Felt as retaliating against him did not have a significant Moreover, Felt nonretaliatory influence failed to reasons for pretext for retaliation. on the termination demonstrate that terminating the his decision. legitimate, employment were To the contrary, there is sufficient evidence that Felt s termination was caused by his failure to meet the expectations of his employment. We likewise reject Felt s retaliation claims brought pursuant to Maryland state law, as he has not established that his engagement in protected activity caused or was a motivating factor in his termination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 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.
