Court Opinion

ID: 990560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:23:20.569117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:49.135160
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SYLVIA H. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 95-1764
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER
COMPANY, now known as Virginia
Power Company,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-94-597-3)

Argued: January 31, 1996

Decided: October 11, 1996

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jay Joseph Levit, LEVIT & MANN, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellants. Donald Lester Creach, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Hill B. Wellford, Jr.,
HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, Sylvia Wright, sued the defendant, Virginia Electric
and Power Company (Virginia Power), for sexual and racial harass-
ment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Richmond Division granted summary judgment for Virginia Power.
Miss Wright appeals and raises three claims: (1) did her immediate
supervisor create a hostile working environment for her, (2) did Vir-
ginia Power take prompt and effective remedial action in response to
her complaints, and (3) did Virginia Power retaliate against her
because of her complaints and because she filed charges with the
EEOC.

The district court determined that the comments complained of by
Miss Wright were not sufficient to rise to the level of harassment. The
court then determined that even if the comments could be found to be
harassment, Virginia Power could not be held liable for the harass-
ment because it took effective remedial action in response to her com-
plaints. The court also determined that Miss Wright could not
establish a prima facie case of retaliation because she had no evidence
that Virginia Power took adverse employment action against her. The
court finally determined that even had Miss Wright established a
prima facie case of retaliation, Virginia Power had sufficient evidence
that any adverse employment action was taken for a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason and that Miss Wright did not have sufficient
evidence to establish pretext.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo . In re Bulldog
Trucking, Inc., 66 F.3d 1390, 1395 (4th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed
the briefs and the record in this case, and after oral argument we are
of opinion that the district court correctly granted summary judgment
for Virginia Power for the reasons expressed in its opinion.

                    2
At oral argument Miss Wright's attorney advises us that she has
since been wrongfully terminated. Any such termination was not liti-
gated in the district court. We ordinarily do not consider a point not
raised in the district court, McGowan v. Gillenwater, 429 F.2d 586,
587 (4th Cir. 1970), and we do not here. We do not consider that
question and express no opinion on it.

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

AFFIRMED.

                    3