UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1500

JOHNNY NEWBILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:07-cv-01019-LO-TCB)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ardra M. O'Neal, THE O'NEAL FIRM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. L. Edward Funk, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Newbill, an African-American male, appeals from 

the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and 

dismissal of his action alleging that his employer, Washington 

Gas Light Company, discriminated and retaliated against him in 

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (2006), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 

(2006), allegedly based upon his race. Specifically, Newbill 

alleges on appeal that he was discriminated and retaliated 

against relative to assignment of work resulting in reduced

payment of overtime, and that he was subjected to a racially 

hostile work environment. Our review of the record and the 

district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without 

merit. 

We conclude that the district court correctly 

determined that Newbill failed to establish a prima facie case 

of either discrimination, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 

411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973); James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 

Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir. 2004), or retaliation, see

King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 150-51 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Specifically, Newbill produced no evidence of any adverse 

employment action. As the district court noted, Newbill 

received no decrease in pay, job title, level of responsibility,

or loss of opportunity for promotion. In fact, the record 
3

reflects just the opposite—his salary and overtime pay increased 

steadily over the years and is commensurate with his fellow 

Caucasian coworkers,1 he continues to perform union-eligible 

Grade 8 duties, he holds the highest level union-eligible job 

available under his union contract and receives the highest pay 

available for that job, he has no disciplinary reports on his 

record, and he remains an active Washington Gas union-eligible 

employee. Newbill’s own, unsubstantiated claims of 

discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment2

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s adverse 

grant of summary judgment and dismissal of Newbill’s action. We 

are 

insufficient to withstand summary judgment. See, e.g., Thompson 

v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) 

(noting that “[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not 

suffice” to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact).

 1 Specifically, relevant to the overtime issue, Newbill had 

approximately the same amount of overtime as other Washington 

Gas Senior Welders and, since, 2004 his overtime earnings 

increased yearly, except for 2008, which minimal decrease easily 

is accounted for by time Newbill was unable to work for health 

reasons. In fact, review of Newbill’s overtime earnings records 

reflects that his overtime pay increased from several thousands 

of dollars per year in 2003 to over five times that amount in 

2008.

2 Newbill has provided no evidence of conduct by the 

employer that demonstrates that his work conditions were 

sufficiently extreme to establish an actionable hostile work 

environment claim. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 

775, 788 (1998).
4

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