Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1482
GERARD OUSLEY,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00031-WO-LPA)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Gerard Ousley appeals the district courts grant of summary
judgment,
which
Department
of
dismissed
his
complaint
Veterans
Affairs
alleging
engaged
that
in
the
race-based
42
U.S.C.
2000e
to
2000e-17
(2012).
Specifically,
Chief
at
the
Department
of
Veterans
that
permitting
the
only
district
limited
court
Medical
On appeal, Ousley
abused
discovery
Affairs
its
before
discretion
granting
in
summary
We affirm.
review
district
courts
decision
to
grant
summary
See Harrods
Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir.
2002).
the
nonmoving
party
has
not
had
the
opportunity
Lobby,
reviewing
the
discretion
limited
in
Inc.,
record
the
discovery
judgment motion.
477
in
U.S.
this
district
before
242,
case,
courts
ruling
on
250
we
n.5
the
discover
Anderson v.
(1986).
discern
decision
to
to
no
After
abuse
permit
Secretarys
of
only
summary
Summary judgment
nonmoving
allegations,
party
mere
must
rely
speculation,
the
on
more
building
than
of
one
conclusory
inference
Every
treatment
on
ultimate
case
the
question:
in
basis
which
of
whether
intentional discrimination.
plaintiff
protected
the
42 U.S.C. 2000e-16
alleges
trait
plaintiff
was
disparate
poses
the
same
the
victim
of
354 F.3d 277, 286 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal quotation
marks omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds, Univ. of
Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013).
3
To
the
protected
employers
trait
influence
decisionmaking
on
the
actually
process
outcome.
Id.
played
and
had
(internal
role
in
determinative
quotation
the
marks
omitted).
Determining
adverse
the
employment
actual
action
decisionmaker
can
be
responsible
paramount
to
for
determining
the
Id.
Id. at 287.
decisionmaker
Dale
in
Hendley,
this
whom
case.
Ousley
The
charges
record
as
the
shows
that
puppeteer
focused
on
Gigliottis
motivations
in
considering
whether
to
mixed-motive
framework;
or
(2)
through
the
310,
omitted).
317
The
Cir.
plaintiff
circumstantial evidence.
display
2005)
may
(internal
do
so
Id. at 318.
discriminatory
quotation
through
marks
direct
or
attitude
and
bear
causal
Warch v. Ohio
Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 520 (4th Cir. 2006).
The
materials
before
us
offer
insufficient
direct
or
Ousleys
demotion.
The
record
reflects
little,
if
any,
Therefore, the
the
pretext
framework,
the
plaintiff
bears
the
Id.
Id.
the plaintiff must show both that the reason advanced was a
sham and that the true reason was an impermissible one under the
law.
1995).
In
that
DVAMCs
Ousley
fails
to
demotion
this
show
were
case,
that
the
the
anything
evidence
dual
but
does
not
investigations
independent
and
show
resulting
unbiased.
in
his
These
that
his
Therefore,
department
the
district
suffered
from
court
properly
numerous
concluded
deficiencies.
that
Ousley
and
materials
legal
before
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED