Court Opinion

ID: 9376884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-04 21:00:19.454953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.995335
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1133      Doc: 22         Filed: 03/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1133

        DARRELL A. THOMPSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Florida corporation,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00699)

        Submitted: January 11, 2023                                       Decided: March 3, 2023

        Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Walt Auvil, EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER, PLLC, Parkersburg, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas R. Brice, Jacksonville, Florida, Jonathan Y. Ellis,
        MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Melissa Foster Bird, NELSON
        MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1133        Doc: 22         Filed: 03/03/2023   Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Darrell A. Thompson appeals from the district court’s order granting CSX’s motion

        for summary judgment on Thompson’s age discrimination complaint. The district court

        ruled that Thompson failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination. Further, the

        court ruled that, even if a prima facie case was made, Thompson failed to show either that

        CSX’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual or that he

        had established a mixed-motive theory of age discrimination.

               On appeal, Thompson challenges only the district court’s conclusion that he failed

        to make a prima facie showing of discrimination. After CSX argued that Thompson had

        forfeited any challenge to the district court’s remaining conclusions, Thompson argued in

        his reply brief that “[p]retext and mixed-motive analyses are not separate analyses from the

        overall analysis of whether Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to support an inference of

        discrimination.” (Appellant’s Reply Br. (ECF No. 19) at 8). * Given that Thompson did not

        attempt, even in his reply brief, to substantively brief the issues of pretext and

        mixed-motive, he has waived any assignment of error on these determinative issues. See

        Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives

        an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its

        argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.”). Further, while the district

        court can consider a plaintiff’s prima facie case and the inferences that can be drawn

        therefrom for the purposes of analyzing pretext and mixed-motive, “the prima facie case,

               *
                   We cite to the electronic page number.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1133      Doc: 22         Filed: 03/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        a mechanism peculiar to the pretext framework, is never by itself sufficient to permit a

        plaintiff to escape an adverse summary judgment ruling except in the rare instance when

        an employer is silent in the face of the presumption it raises.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &

        Acc. Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 318-19 (4th Cir. 2005).

               Because, on appeal, Thompson has not addressed the pretext or mixed-motive

        issues, he has waived his right to challenge the district court’s determinations on those

        issues. Accordingly, we affirm. 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