UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN M. VANDEVANDER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD J. VOORHAAR, the Sheriff of

St. Mary’s County and individually,  No. 01-1865 Defendant-Appellee,

and

ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE,

Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(CA-99-1911-CCB)

Submitted: January 30, 2002

Decided: February 20, 2002

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Joe C. Ashworth, Leonardtown, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Karpinski, Victoria M. Shearer, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER &

KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Steven Vandevander appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Appellee on his sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e-2 and 2000e-3(a). We affirm. 

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and construes the facts in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v.

Objective, Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 590-91 (4th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Once the moving party discharges its burden by showing there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s

case, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a

genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted

unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving

party on the evidence presented. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

Appellant first argues he was sexually harassed because he resisted

a co-worker’s sexual advances, and her actions created a hostile work

environment. In order to state a claim for a hostile work environment,

an Appellant must show: "(1) the harassment was unwelcome; (2) the

harassment was because of sex; (3) the harassment was sufficiently

severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create

an abusive atmosphere; and (4) there is some basis for imposing liability on the employer." Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801 (4th Cir.

1998). 

2 VANDEVANDER v. VOORHAAR
To determine whether the harassment is severe enough to create a

hostile work environment, a court should consider: (1) the frequency

of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; (4)

whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance; and (5) whether it resulted in psychological harm. Harris v.

Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993); Conner v. ScharaderBridgeport, Int’l., Inc., 227 F.3d 179, 193 (4th Cir. 2000). The district

court properly concluded Vandevander failed to show sexual harassment severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. 

Vandevander also claims he was unlawfully terminated for filing

sexual harassment and retaliation complaints with the EEOC. In order

to establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of Title VII,

Vandevander must show (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) his

employer took an adverse employment action against him; and (3) a

causal connection existed between the protected activity and the

adverse action. Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 460 (4th Cir. 1994). If

Vandevander establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the

Appellees to produce evidence of a "legitimate, non-discriminatory

reason" for the termination. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). If the Appellee meets this burden,

Vandevander must show the explanation for the decision to terminate

him was a pretext for intentional retaliation. Reeves v. Sanderson

Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147-48 (2000). 

Although Vandevander engaged in protected activity and suffered

an adverse employment action, we conclude he failed to establish a

causal link between his protected activity and his termination. Even

if Vandevander established a prima facie case for retaliation, Vandevander cannot rebut his employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory

reason for his termination. Because Vandevander has not shown the

decision to terminate him was a pretext for intentional retaliation, see

Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147-48, we conclude the district court did not err

in granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with

oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

VANDEVANDER v. VOORHAAR 3