Court Opinion

ID: 9391008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:57.565729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.790439
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2177      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-2177

        ALLISON TULLY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CASSADAY & COMPANY, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01154-LO-JFA)

        Submitted: April 12, 2023                                         Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Kellee Boulais Kruse, R. Scott Oswald, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW
        GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph E. Schuler, Bernard G. Dennis, III,
        JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2177      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Allison Tully appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her

        former employer, Cassaday & Company, Inc., on her claims of retaliation and hostile work

        environment, which she brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

        amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (Title VII). “[We review] the district court’s

        grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court

        and viewing the facts and inferences drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the

        nonmoving party.” Perkins v. Int’l Paper Co., 936 F.3d 196, 205 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned

        up).

               “Title VII forbids (i) employment practices that discriminate against an employee

        on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and

        (ii) retaliation against an employee for opposing adverse actions that she reasonably

        suspects to be unlawful under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.” Strothers v. City of Laurel,

        895 F.3d 317, 326-27 (4th Cir. 2018). Absent direct evidence of discrimination or

        retaliation, a plaintiff must prove her claim through the burden-shifting framework

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

               To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas

        framework, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) the

        employer acted adversely against her, and (3) there was a causal connection between the

        protected activity and the asserted adverse action.” Walton v. Harker, 33 F.4th 165, 177

        (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish a prima facie hostile work

        environment claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) unwelcome conduct; (2) based on the

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2177      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        plaintiff’s sex; (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter [her] conditions of employment

        and create an abusive work environment; and (4) that is imputable to the employer.”

        Roberts v. Glenn Indus. Grp., Inc., 998 F.3d 111, 117 (4th Cir. 2021). If a supervisor’s

        harassing behavior does not result in a tangible employment action, an employer “may

        escape liability by establishing, as an affirmative defense, that (1) the employer exercised

        reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff

        unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the

        employer provided.” Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 278 (4th Cir.

        2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Applying these standards, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Tully v. Cassaday & Co., Inc., No. 1:19-

        cv-01154-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 30, 2020 & entered Oct. 2, 2020). We dispense

        with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3