Court Opinion

ID: 9404762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 21:00:45.774685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.887184
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22        Filed: 06/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 7

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1201

        CLARA SCHACK,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        PARALLON ENTERPRISES, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee,

                     and

        LEWIS-GALE HOSPITAL, INC.; HCA – THE HEALTHCARE COMPANY;
        MONTGOMERY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00767-TTC-RSB)

        Submitted: August 31, 2022                                     Decided: June 23, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brittany M. Haddox, Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW,
        Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Susan Childers North, Brett C. Herbert, GORDON
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 7

        REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 7

        PER CURIAM:

               Clara Schack appeals the district court’s order granting Parallon Enterprises, LLC

        (“Parallon”) summary judgment on Schack’s claims of breach of contract and fraudulent

        inducement (“the state law claims”); discrimination, in violation of the Pregnancy

        Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), and the Americans with Disabilities Act

        (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213; and failure to accommodate, in violation of the

        ADA. * We affirm.

               We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary

        judgment, “review[ing] the facts in the light most favorable to” the nonmoving party and

        “drawing all reasonable inferences in [her] favor.” Dean v. Jones, 984 F.3d 295, 301

        (4th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no

        genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

        of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A factual dispute is genuine only where the nonmovant’s

        version is supported by sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find in [her]

        favor.” United States v. 8.929 Acres of Land, 36 F.4th 240, 252 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned

        up). Conversely, “[w]hen a party fails to establish the existence of an element essential to

        that party’s case, there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Perkins v. Int’l Paper Co.,

        936 F.3d 196, 205 (4th Cir. 2019). Ultimately, we will uphold the district court’s grant of

        summary judgment unless we find that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

               *
                Schack also argues that Parallon’s failure to accommodate her violated the PDA.
        However, Schack did not raise this claim in her amended complaint, and she therefore
        cannot pursue it here.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 7

        nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Ltd.

        P’ship, 903 F.3d 415, 423 (4th Cir. 2018).

               Beginning with the state law claims, to establish a breach of contract in Virginia, a

        plaintiff must show “(1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2)

        the defendant’s violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the

        plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation.” Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry.

        Co., 3 F.4th 605, 613 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The party

        asserting the existence of a contract bears the burden of establishing the existence of a

        legally enforceable agreement. Brown v. Brown, 674 S.E.2d 597, 599 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).

        “In order to be binding, an agreement must be definite and certain as to its terms and

        requirements; it must identify the subject matter and spell out the essential commitments

        and agreements with respect thereto.” Dodge v. Trs. of Randolph-Macon Woman’s Coll.,

        661 S.E.2d 801, 803 (Va. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Although it is contract-related, fraudulent inducement is a tort. See Hitachi Credit

        Am. Corp. v. Signet Bank, 166 F.3d 614, 628 (4th Cir. 1999). “In Virginia, to prevail on a

        claim for fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must prove . . . (1) the defendant made a

        material misrepresentation for the purpose of procuring a contract; (2) the plaintiff relied

        on the misrepresentation; and (3) the plaintiff was induced by the misrepresentation to enter

        into the agreement.” Fransmart, LLC v. Freshii Dev., LLC, 768 F. Supp. 2d 851, 864

        (E.D. Va. 2011) (footnote omitted). Critically, “the misrepresentation or concealment must

        have been intended to induce and must, in fact, have induced the formation [or

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 5 of 7

        performance] of [a] contract.” Ware v. Scott, 257 S.E.2d 855, 857 (Va. 1979); see also

        Augusta Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mason, 645 S.E.2d 290, 293 (Va. 2007).

               After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not err by finding

        that Schack did not establish the existence of an enforceable contract obliging Parallon to

        transfer Schack from one position to another. As the existence of a contract is vital to the

        success of Schack’s state law claims, the district court did not err by finding that Parallon

        was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those claims.

               Moving to Schack’s first ADA claim, “[t]o establish a claim of disability

        discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove (1) that she has a disability, (2) that

        she is a qualified individual for the employment in question, and (3) that her employer

        discharged her (or took other adverse employment action) because of her disability.” Smith

        v. CSRA, 12 F.4th 396, 412 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “An employee is qualified if they

        can perform the essential functions of the employment position they hold or desire, either

        with or without reasonable accommodation.” Wirtes v. City of Newport News, 996 F.3d

        234, 238 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up); see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).

               We conclude that Schack forfeited appellate review of an essential element of this

        claim: whether she is a qualified individual under the ADA. “[A] party must do more than

        raise a non-specific objection or claim to preserve a more specific argument on appeal.

        Rather, to preserve an argument for appeal, the party must press and not merely intimate

        the argument during the proceedings before the district court.” Wards Corner Beauty Acad.

        v. Nat’l Accrediting Comm’n of Career Arts & Scis., 922 F.3d 568, 578 (4th Cir. 2019)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). Schack did not press the arguments she makes on

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22          Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 6 of 7

        appeal regarding this issue before the district court and, therefore, failed to ask this court

        and the district court “to evaluate the same fundamental question.” De Simone v. VSL

        Pharms., Inc., 36 F.4th 518, 528 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Next, to establish a claim under the PDA, a plaintiff may either present direct

        evidence of discriminatory intent or proceed under the burden-shifting framework

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

        Parcel Serv., Inc., 575 U.S. 206, 228-30 (2015). To establish a prima facie case of

        discrimination under McDonnell Douglas, as Schack attempted to do here, a plaintiff must

        first establish that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse

        action; (3) her job performance was satisfactory; and (4) the adverse action occurred “under

        circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Adams v. Trs. of

        Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2011). Our review of the record

        leads us to conclude that the district court did not err by finding that Schack had not

        established each element of her prima facie case on this claim.

               Finally, to succeed on a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA, a plaintiff

        must prove “(1) that [s]he was an individual who had a disability within the meaning of the

        statute; (2) that the employer had notice of [her] disability; (3) that with reasonable

        accommodation [s]he could perform the essential functions of the position; and (4) that the

        employer refused to make such accommodations.” Wirtes, 996 F.3d at 239 (internal

        quotation marks omitted).       Because Schack did not provide the required medical

        documentation, the district court did not err by granting Parallon summary judgment on

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1201      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 7 of 7

        this claim. See Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Grp., Inc., 951 F.3d 805, 812 (6th Cir. 2020);

        see also 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. (2022).

               We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                     7