UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PARSHOTAM SINGH CHAHIL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 01-1208 DANIEL R. GLICKMAN,

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(CA-99-3510-CCB)

Submitted: October 31, 2001

Decided: November 28, 2001

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Gary T. Brown, BROWN & SHERMAN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.

for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United States Attorney, Allen

F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Appellant Parshotam Chahil appeals from a district court order

granting summary judgment to his employer, the Secretary of the

United States Department of Agriculture (the "Agency"), and dismissing Chahil’s complaint alleging unlawful employment discrimination.

Chahil raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court

abused its discretion by granting summary judgment on the Agency’s

motion before Chahil pursued discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(f); (2) whether the district court erred in finding Chahil not qualified for the GS-12 Mathematical Statistician position; (3) whether the

district court erred in holding that the Agency’s proffered reason for

failure to promote was not pretextual; (4) whether the district court

erred in finding that Chahil did not establish a claim of retaliation;

and (5) whether the Agency provided reasonable accommodation for

Chahil’s disability. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Parshotam Chahil, who has a Ph.D. in statistics, worked for the

Human Nutrition Information Service, an agency of the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA), from 1984 to 1994, when the

agency was disbanded. Chahil transferred to the Food Surveys

Research Group (FSRG) of the Agricultural Research Service

Agency, an agency of the USDA, where he is presently employed. At

all times, Chahil has been a GS-11 mathematical statistician. In 1985,

Chahil developed a severe cornea problem, which required numerous

surgeries in both eyes, and glaucoma. These maladies rendered Chahil

legally blind and unable to read without using a magnifying device.

Chahil is sixty-two years old. His country of national origin is India.

In June 1995, Chahil requested $21,622 worth of new computer

equipment which would enable him to read and to perform his duties.

The Agency approved this request, and the new equipment was

ordered and installed. Because Chahil experienced problems with the

2 CHAHIL v. GLICKMAN
new system, the Agency spent an additional $4400 on equipment and

$2700 on training. Although Chahil still experienced problems with

his workstation’s ability to interact with the Agency’s system, the system was found to be "working perfectly concerning the adaptive

equipment" by a technician hired to correct the problems. 

On February 19, 1997, Chahil requested a promotion to a GS-12

mathematical statistician position. His supervisor, Katherine Tippett,

scheduled a mid-term evaluation conference in conjunction with this

request on February 28, 1997, but the evaluation conference was postponed twice, due to external circumstances, until April 23, 1997.

Chahil filed an informal complaint with the Equal Employment

Office ("EEO") of the USDA in March 1997. At the performance

review, Tippett rated Chahil’s ability to perform the GS-12 position

and found his skills inadequate to perform at the higher level required

by that position. 

On August 12, 1999, the EEO found no discrimination and issued

a right to sue letter. Chahil brought suit in district court asserting his

claims of discrimination. The district court granted the Agency’s

motion for summary judgment. Chahil timely appealed.

After considering the parties’ briefs and joint appendix, we affirm

for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion. See

Chahil v. Glickman, No. CA-99-3510-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2000).

We reject Chahil’s assertion that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(f). The district court also properly found that Chahil could not

demonstrate the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination

under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

After the Agency gave a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his

actions, Chahil bore the burden of showing that the reason was a pretext for illegal discrimination. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). The district court properly found

Chahil’s personal speculations, standing alone, were insufficient to

satisfy this burden. See Evan v. Technologies Applications & Serv.

Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960-61 (4th Cir. 1996). The district court also properly found that the Agency reasonably accommodated Chahil’s disability through the purchase of the equipment he requested and the

enhancement of that equipment with additional equipment and trainCHAHIL v. GLICKMAN 3
ing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

4 CHAHIL v. GLICKMAN