Court Opinion

ID: 9911821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:50.583111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:48.790376
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1073      Doc: 21         Filed: 12/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1073

        NITIN AGRAWAL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01381-AJT-IDD)

        Submitted: November 30, 2023                                Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nitin Agrawal, Appellant Pro Se. Eli Samuel Schlam, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY,
        Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1073         Doc: 21         Filed: 12/19/2023       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                 Nitin Agrawal appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

        George Mason University (“the University”) on Agrawal’s claim brought pursuant to Title

        VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Agrawal contended

        that the University denied him tenure as retaliation for supporting a colleague’s claim of

        unlawful discrimination.

                 Absent direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must prove a Title VII

        discrimination 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, a plaintiff must show “(i) that [he] engaged in protected activity, (ii) that [his]

        employer took adverse action against [him,] and (iii) that a causal relationship existed

        between the protected activity and the adverse employment activity.” Sempowich v. Tactile

        Sys. Tech., Inc., 19 F.4th 643, 653 (4th Cir. 2021) (alterations and internal quotation marks

        omitted). “Since, by definition, an employer cannot take action because of a factor of

        which it is unaware, the employer’s knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in a protected

        activity is absolutely necessary to establish the third element of the prima facie case.”

        Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir.

        1998).

                 If the plaintiff establishes his prima facie case, then the burden shifts to the employer

        to demonstrate “a legitimate non-retaliatory reason” for its action. Sempowich, 19 F.4th at

        654 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the employer satisfies this burden, then the

                                                         2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1073      Doc: 21         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s purportedly

        neutral reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Id.

               The district court found that Agrawal suffered an adverse employment action but

        concluded that, even assuming Agrawal sufficiently established that he engaged in

        protected activity, he had not shown a causal connection between the alleged protected

        activity and the denial of his tenure. The court rejected Agrawal’s contention that in

        denying his tenure, the final decisionmaker merely rubber-stamped recommendations that

        were infected with retaliatory motive.

               We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s order. Agrawal v. George Mason Univ., No. 1:20-cv-01381-AJT-IDD

        (E.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2021). 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