Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1557
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02470-JFM)
Argued:
Decided:
Employment
Act
(ADEA),
pursuant
to
29
U.S.C
623(d).
I.
In December 2006, Dr. Deborah Beebe, Ph.D., hired Buchhagen
to
work
on
Lockheed-Martin
Corporations
Cancer
Information
and
her
primary
responsibility
was
writing
content
for
In June 2009,
Buchhagen claims that Beebe told her no one will hire you
at your age in the summer of 2009, shortly before she applied
for her position at Z-Tech.
Shortly thereafter,
glitch
problem
was
problem
and
contentious.
rather
eventually
others
than
her
own
corrected,
involvement
mistake.
her
in
attitude
the
Although
the
toward
the
solution
became
out
however,
the
internal
Buchhagen
strife
believed
arising
that
from
Beebe
was
the
SHI
angry
issue;
with
her
J.A. 185.
her
performance
evaluation
from
Beebe.
She
vociferously
Shortly
had
but
three
meetings
Buchhagen
was
to
discuss
ultimately
the
interpersonal
unsatisfied
with
the
in
managing
the
Glossary
and
that
addressed
NCIs
front
replacement
to
the
plan
and
client.
believed
Buchhagen
considered
it
way
was
for
this
Beebe
a
to
Glossary
project
in
the
event
of
illness,
absence,
continued
internal
to
Z-Tech
implementation
of
deteriorate.
matters
the
by
backup
Buchhagen
raising
plan.
4
involved
questions
She
further
NCI
about
in
the
undermined
Beebes
authority
harass her.
by
questioning
the
plan
as
mechanism
to
Before
made
no
age-related
claim.
After
review,
Human
PIP
was
finalized
on
June
23,
2010,
and
presented
to
immediately
after
receiving
J.A. 323.
the
PIP,
Buchhagen
of
the
terms
of
her
PIP
and
indicated
that
her
In short,
be
terminated
J.A. 351.
according
to
the
PIP
if
this
continues.
20, 2010.
5
and
discrimination
to
Human
Resources.
In
this
document, she noted for the first time her status as a member of
a protected class due to her age, among a multitude of other
employment practice complaints.
Z-Tech decided to end Buchhagens employment on or around
July 21, 2010, and she was informed of this decision a few days
later.
II.
In
2013,
raising
Buchhagen
claims
of
brought
hostile
this
action
work
environment,
Intl,
Inc.,
545
F.
Appx.
against
217
(4th
Z-Tech,
unlawful
See Buchhagen v.
Cir.
2013).
The
Id. at 219.
failed
sufficient
to
allege
facts
state
hostile
work
count.
wrongful
Id.
discharge
at
and
21920.
As
retaliation,
to
Buchhagens
however,
we
claims
of
reversed
on
Id. at 220-21.
On
remand
discovery.
to
the
district
court,
the
parties
completed
claims, and after considering the parties briefs along with the
record
evidence,
the
district
court
granted
Z-Techs
motion.
no
that
evidence
to
suggest
defendants
discriminated
against
either
that
she
was
meeting
the
legitimate
Id. at *2.
ADEA
retaliation
claim.
We
now
consider
whether
she
III.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Univ.
of
Summary
Md.-E.
Shore,
judgment
is
787
F.3d
243,
248
(4th
appropriate
when
there
is
Foster v.
Cir.
no
2015).
genuine
Id. 3
A dispute is genuine if a
view
the
facts
and
all
justifiable
Id.
The Court
inferences
arising
29 U.S.C. 623(a).
the
Id.
ADEA],
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
that:
(1)
he
protected
activity
and
the
adverse
action.
Laber
v.
Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 432 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
When
there
discrimination,
is
which
no
is
direct
the
case
evidence
here,
the
of
retaliatory
Fourth
Circuit
applies
the
McDonnell
Douglas 4
burden-shifting
framework.
to
the
defendant
to
articulate
legitimate,
the
defendant
satisfies
this
burden,
the
nonId.
presumption
Id. at 43031.
IV.
A.
Z-Tech first presents a procedural argument that it claims
forecloses this appeal.
4
Buchhagen argues that Beebes comment while at LockheedMartin about my age and that it would be difficult . . . to
get another job, coupled with her later complaints of age
discrimination are direct evidence of retaliation.
Cf. J.A.
913. We do not find this to be persuasive, as it is taken out
of context. Moreover, Beebe had already hired her at age sixtyfour and later promoted her at age sixty-seven.
her
ability
to
appeal
the
district
courts
grant
of
summary
district
courts
findings
of
law
as
to
the
wrongful
perhaps
maladroit,
Buchhagens
issue
statement
claim
retaliatory
shifting,
when
motive
she
for
pretextual
presented
her
reasons
abundant
termination;
for
her
evidence
Defendants
termination;
of
offered
material
Opening Br.
presented
throughout
her
opening
and
reply
briefs,
directly
sufficient
to
pursue
review
of
this
claim.
For
these
to
the
merits,
to
survive
summary
judgment
See
that
Buchhagens
termination
constituted
an
adverse
argues
she
engaged
in
protected
activity
by
environment.
complaints
were
But
largely
contrary
silent
to
her
position
about
age
and
now,
were
her
instead
treatment
by
Beebe.
As
best
we
can
tell,
Buchhagen
in
context,
her
cursory
statement
seems
And when
to
be
an
termination.
Although
the
bar
to
show
protected
activity is rather low, see EEOC v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 424
F.3d 397, 406 (4th Cir. 2005), we are hard pressed to credit
this stray reference as carrying the day.
11
we
activity
will
as
assume
required
that
by
the
Buchhagen
ADEA.
We
engaged
thus
in
move
protected
on
to
the
the
protected
activity.
Dowe
v.
Total
Action
Against
Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir. 1998).
As
this
Court
has
previously
explained,
the
traditional
the
retaliation
employment action.
the
employee
must
was
the
real
reason
for
that
he
would
not
the
adverse
Put differently,
have
suffered
an
Id.
that
conduct.
retaliation
was
the
real
reason
for
the
challenged
even
insubordinate.
Buchhagen,
12
545
F.
Appx.
at
220.
than
Z-Techs
legitimate
business
interests.
Z-Tech
behavior
to
the
point
where
Beebe
lost
trust
in
the
record
behavior,
despite
fully
documents
repeated
Buchhagens
warnings
from
In
contumacious
Beebe
and
Human
Resources.
Further,
dissatisfaction
the
with
record
details
Buchhagens
work
Z-Techs
ethic
prior
growing
to
any
the
PIPs
terms,
predate
her
protected
activity.
As this Court
proximity
between
her
termination
and
her
protected
V.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED
15