Court Opinion

ID: 998509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:12:01.845147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:16.466286
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD M. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOTAL ACTION AGAINST
POVERTY/HEAD START,                                                 No. 98-2546
Defendant-Appellee,

and

CAROLYN D. HOPPER; CLEO C. SIMS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-96-787-R)

Submitted: March 23, 1999

Decided: April 20, 1999

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bettina C. Altizer, Jack Vernon Altizer, ALTIZER & ALTIZER,
P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jonathan Rogers, JONA-
THAN ROGERS, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Edward M. Mitchell appeals the district court's order granting sum-
mary judgment in favor of Total Action Against Poverty/Head Start
in Mitchell's employment discrimination action. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
Mitchell argues that the district court erred in applying the "rigid"
framework of McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792
(1973), and requiring that he show he was replaced by someone not
within the protected class. Instead, to satisfy this prong of the test he
suggests that he had to establish only that he was discharged under
circumstances raising an inference of illegal discrimination. See, e.g.,
Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981). We need not resolve whether the district court applied the
wrong standard as Mitchell fails to make out a prima facie case even
under the standard he articulates. He fails to raise an inference of ille-
gal discrimination and he also fails to show that he was performing
his duties in a satisfactory manner.

Mitchell also argues that his retaliatory discharge claim was dis-
missed in error. We disagree. Because Mitchell fails to show that he
was performing his duties in a satisfactory manner, he cannot show
that but for the protected conduct, he would not have been terminated.
See Dwyer v. Smith, 867 F.2d 184, 190-91 (4th Cir. 1989). Thus, the
district court did not err in dismissing the claim. Accordingly, we
affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2