Court Opinion

ID: 9890435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 21:00:39.887587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.335679
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2221      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/11/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2221

        ANNE MEREDITH SUGAR,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        EMORY & HENRY COLLEGE,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Abingdon. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (1:20−cv−00005−PMS)

        Submitted: October 5, 2022                                    Decided: October 11, 2023

        Before WYNN, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, N. Winston West, IV, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT
        LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Mary Elizabeth Davis, Patrick D. Houston,
        WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2221      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on various

        state law and federal claims brought by Anne Meredith Sugar alleging employment

        discrimination and breach of contract. On appeal, Sugar contends that the district court

        erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment since she had established

        prima facie cases of discrimination. She further claims that, to the extent that Emory &

        Henry College might put forth a non-discriminatory reason justifying her termination, she

        has sufficiently shown that that was pretext. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We find no error in the district court’s decision that Sugar had not presented any

        evidence showing that she was performing to her employer’s legitimate expectations. See

        King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir. 2003). We further find that none of the

        evidence proffered by Sugar is at all relevant to whether Emory & Henry’s decision to fire

        her for her disruptive behavior was pretextual. We also find that the district court did not

        err in rejecting Sugar’s disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. See Lewis v. City

        of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 212 (2010); Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406

        F.3d 248, 265 (4th Cir. 2005). As such, it did not err in granting summary judgment on

        her breach-of-contract claims. Cf. Lockhart v. Commonwealth Educ. Sys. Corp., 439

        S.E.2d 328, 332 (Va. 1994).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We 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

                                                     2