UNPUBLISHED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; MARTIN E. 

DEMPSEY, GENERAL – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 
2

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

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, who is an African-American woman, was hired in 

January 2005 by the Defense Department Joint Staff to 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 Opportunity (“EEO”) complaints beginning in 2005, 

giving rise to four EEO reports of investigation. She was 

terminated in August 2007. 

Hill appealed her termination to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“MSPB”). An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) 

upheld the termination, and the MSPB subsequently issued a final 

order affirming the ALJ’s decision. Hill then appealed the 

MSPB’s final order to the Equal Employment 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 
4

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 on her hostile work environment claim and another 

portion of her retaliation claim. 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 it 

challenged the revocation of her security clearance. The court 

also granted judgment on the pleadings against Hill on her 

hostile-work-environment claim. Additionally, the court granted 

summary judgment against Hill on her discrimination claims and 

the remaining portion of her retaliation claim. The court 
5

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. As for the other raceand gender-based discrimination 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. And concerning 

Hill’s retaliation claim, the district court concluded as a 

matter of law that with regard to each complained-of action, 

either Hill failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the 

actions were not materially adverse, the actions were not 

causally related to the alleged protected conduct, or 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