Court Opinion

ID: 9556344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 20:23:21.235121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.613099
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2136      Doc: 24         Filed: 08/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2136

        MITAL SUMAN KUMAR PATEL, Dr.,

                             Plaintiff – Appellee,

                      v.

        DENIS R. MCDONOUGH, Secretary United States Department of Veterans Affairs,

                             Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. James P. Mazzone, Magistrate Judge. (1:21−cv−00131−JPM)

        Submitted: April 26, 2023                                         Decided: August 15, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Nicholas Woodfield, R. Scott Oswald, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP,
        PC, Washington, D.C.; Drew M. Capuder, CAPUDER FANTASIA, PLLC, Fairmont,
        West Virginia, for Appellant. Jordan V. Palmer, Assistant United States Attorney, Morgan
        S. McKee, Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher J. Prezioso, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2136         Doc: 24       Filed: 08/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dr. Mital Suman Kumar Patel appeals the district court’s order granting summary

        judgment to Denis McDonough on his claims for national origin discrimination in violation

        of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Patel alleged two bases for violations of Title

        VII: (1) disparate treatment based on national origin and (2) disparate impact based on

        national origin.

               As to Patel’s disparate treatment claim, we have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. In reviewing the record on Patel’s disparate impact claim, we similarly

        find no reversible error. However, we note that the district court granted summary

        judgment for Patel’s disparate impact claim on two separate bases. First, it held that a

        plaintiff in a disparate impact case is required to put forth expert statistical evidence and,

        because Patel did not do so, his claim failed. But we do not require statistical evidence, let

        alone expert statistical evidence, to prove a disparate impact claim. Thomas v. Washington

        Cnty. Sch. Bd., 915 F.2d 922, 926 (4th Cir. 1990) (“[A]lthough disparate impact cases

        usually focus on statistics, they are neither the exclusive nor a necessary means of proof.”).

        However, we affirm on the alternative basis that, considering the evidence put forth by

        Patel as a whole, he has failed to set forth a prima facie case of disparate impact

        discrimination.

               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

                                                      2