Anne Sugar v. Emory & Henry College

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 11, 2023
• Docket: 21-2221
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2221 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2221

ANNE MEREDITH SUGAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EMORY & HENRY COLLEGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (1:20−cv−00005−PMS)

Submitted: October 5, 2022 Decided: October 11, 2023

Before WYNN, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, N. Winston West, IV, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Mary Elizabeth Davis, Patrick D. Houston, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2221 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on various

state law and federal claims brought by Anne Meredith Sugar alleging employment

discrimination and breach of contract. On appeal, Sugar contends that the district court

erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment since she had established

prima facie cases of discrimination. She further claims that, to the extent that Emory &

Henry College might put forth a non-discriminatory reason justifying her termination, she

has sufficiently shown that that was pretext. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find no error in the district court’s decision that Sugar had not presented any

evidence showing that she was performing to her employer’s legitimate expectations. See

King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 149 (4th Cir. 2003). We further find that none of the

evidence proffered by Sugar is at all relevant to whether Emory & Henry’s decision to fire

her for her disruptive behavior was pretextual. We also find that the district court did not

err in rejecting Sugar’s disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. See Lewis v. City

of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 212 (2010); Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406

F.3d 248, 265 (4th Cir. 2005). As such, it did not err in granting summary judgment on

her breach-of-contract claims. Cf. Lockhart v. Commonwealth Educ. Sys. Corp., 439

S.E.2d 328, 332 (Va. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED