USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1877
MUMINATOU BAH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SAMPSON BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Han-Dee Hugo’s,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23−cv−00330−FL−RN)
Argued: March 18, 2026 Decided: May 29, 2026
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Nathaniel J. Pencook, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Matthew S. Marlowe, Hannah B. Simmons, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Phillip J. Strach, Jordan A. Koonts, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Muminatou Bah brought suit against her employer, Sampson Bladen Oil
Co. (“Sampson Bladen”), alleging multiple claims under Title VII and the North Carolina
Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”) for adverse employment actions.
Specifically, Bah alleges that Sampson Bladen gave her lower-performing stores and
subsequently terminated her employment based on her race and in retaliation for
complaints she levied regarding overtime pay.
But, in weaving her tale, Bah failed to contend with her documented history of poor
communication and the egregious and disturbing conditions of one of her store locations.
It was on these grounds that her employer premised her termination. Because Bah did not
establish that these legitimate reasons were pretextual, and because Bah never made a
qualifying REDA complaint, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Sampson Bladen. The district court performed a careful analysis of the facts and legal
standards in this case. We therefore affirm.
I.
The district court’s factual narrative accorded plaintiff the benefit of inferences on
summary judgment, and we thus adopt the district court’s recital with appreciation. To
briefly summarize, Bah, a black Gambian woman, began employment at Sampson Bladen
in 2011 as a store manager. In 2017, the company promoted her to district manager. Bah
received largely positive performance evaluations throughout her tenure, although her
supervisors repeatedly noted that she needed to improve her communication skills. In 2021,
2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 3 of 7
however, Bah’s performance evaluations suffered a noticeable decline from between
“Satisfactory” and “Excellent” to between “Needs Improvement” and “Satisfactory.” J.A.
473–79, 1141.
During Bah’s employment as a district manager, Sampson Bladen required her to
assume supervision of Store 98 after two white district managers were allowed to decline
this responsibility. Bah claims that this store was underperforming and that once she
bettered conditions, Sampson Bladen attempted to swap her district and remove Store 98
from her supervision. Despite these alleged efforts, Bah always retained supervision of
Store 98.
Bah also supervised Store 80. In June 2022, Sampson Bladen discovered flagrant
violations of company policy at this facility. Employees were living at the same address
despite a prohibition on hiring such situated individuals. One employee had been
intoxicated on the job and urinated on the floor. A largely AWOL store manager falsified
employee timesheets in exchange for drugs and asked an employee to buy him a firearm
which he could not otherwise legally acquire. J.A. 485–87, 496, 505, 510. One company
official called these conditions “the worst [he] had ever seen.” J.A. 440, 1143. But Bah
claimed ignorance. Ignorance in spite of her responsibilities to supervise the facility and
its store manager. And all of this came on the heels of another failure earlier in 2022: the
discovery of improper cigarette sales in various Sampson Bladen locations, including
Bah’s stores.
After unearthing these violations, Sampson Bladen terminated Bah’s employment
on July 7, 2022, citing “[p]erformance issue[s],” including “[c]ontinuous failure[s]” to
3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 4 of 7
ensure compliance with company policies and procedures and to communicate effectively
with superiors. J.A. 1143, 2182.
II.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and making
all inferences in the light most favorable to Bah, the nonmoving party. Hood-Wilson v. Bd.
of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. of Balt. Cnty., 162 F.4th 101, 105 (4th Cir. 2025). We agree with the
district court’s thorough analysis, which we briefly outline below.
A.
Under McDonnell Douglas Co. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), Title VII
discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence must pass a three-stage test in order
to survive summary judgment. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of
discrimination. Assuming such a case exists, the defendant then has the opportunity to
furnish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for the adverse employment action. If the
defendant meets its burden of production, the plaintiff must then establish that the
defendant’s proffered rationale was merely a pretextual guise for underlying
discrimination. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303, 308–09 (2025). While
Bah met her prima facie burden, she did not provide adequate evidence of pretext.
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must make four
showings: (1) that she belongs to a protected class, (2) that she was subject to an adverse
employment action, (3) that she had been meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations,
and (4) that circumstances raise a reasonable inference that the adverse action constitutes
4 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 5 of 7
unlawful discrimination. Hood-Wilson, 162 F.4th at 105. The district court appropriately
found that Bah met this minimum threshold.
First, no one contests Bah’s membership in a protected class. Second, Bah
established viable adverse employment actions in the form of the additional burden of
Store 98 and her ultimate termination. Third, Bah’s positive performance evaluations and
salary raises highlight that she fulfilled her employer’s legitimate expectations. And lastly,
the fact that individuals outside Bah’s protected class were allowed to decline supervision
of Store 98 and that such an individual replaced Bah as district manager raise a reasonable
inference of unlawful discrimination. See Miles v. Dell, Inc., 429 F.3d 480, 487–88 (4th
Cir. 2005).
Next, the district court found that Sampson Bladen had met its burden to produce
evidence supportive of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for the adverse
employment actions. Sampson Bladen required Bah to supervise Store 98 to ensure a more
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1877
MUMINATOU BAH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SAMPSON BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Han-Dee Hugo’s,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23−cv−00330−FL−RN)
Argued: March 18, 2026 Decided: May 29, 2026
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Nathaniel J. Pencook, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Matthew S. Marlowe, Hannah B. Simmons, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Phillip J. Strach, Jordan A. Koonts, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Muminatou Bah brought suit against her employer, Sampson Bladen Oil
Co. (“Sampson Bladen”), alleging multiple claims under Title VII and the North Carolina
Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”) for adverse employment actions.
Specifically, Bah alleges that Sampson Bladen gave her lower-performing stores and
subsequently terminated her employment based on her race and in retaliation for
complaints she levied regarding overtime pay.
But, in weaving her tale, Bah failed to contend with her documented history of poor
communication and the egregious and disturbing conditions of one of her store locations.
It was on these grounds that her employer premised her termination. Because Bah did not
establish that these legitimate reasons were pretextual, and because Bah never made a
qualifying REDA complaint, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Sampson Bladen. The district court performed a careful analysis of the facts and legal
standards in this case. We therefore affirm.
I.
The district court’s factual narrative accorded plaintiff the benefit of inferences on
summary judgment, and we thus adopt the district court’s recital with appreciation. To
briefly summarize, Bah, a black Gambian woman, began employment at Sampson Bladen
in 2011 as a store manager. In 2017, the company promoted her to district manager. Bah
received largely positive performance evaluations throughout her tenure, although her
supervisors repeatedly noted that she needed to improve her communication skills. In 2021,
2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 3 of 7
however, Bah’s performance evaluations suffered a noticeable decline from between
“Satisfactory” and “Excellent” to between “Needs Improvement” and “Satisfactory.” J.A.
473–79, 1141.
During Bah’s employment as a district manager, Sampson Bladen required her to
assume supervision of Store 98 after two white district managers were allowed to decline
this responsibility. Bah claims that this store was underperforming and that once she
bettered conditions, Sampson Bladen attempted to swap her district and remove Store 98
from her supervision. Despite these alleged efforts, Bah always retained supervision of
Store 98.
Bah also supervised Store 80. In June 2022, Sampson Bladen discovered flagrant
violations of company policy at this facility. Employees were living at the same address
despite a prohibition on hiring such situated individuals. One employee had been
intoxicated on the job and urinated on the floor. A largely AWOL store manager falsified
employee timesheets in exchange for drugs and asked an employee to buy him a firearm
which he could not otherwise legally acquire. J.A. 485–87, 496, 505, 510. One company
official called these conditions “the worst [he] had ever seen.” J.A. 440, 1143. But Bah
claimed ignorance. Ignorance in spite of her responsibilities to supervise the facility and
its store manager. And all of this came on the heels of another failure earlier in 2022: the
discovery of improper cigarette sales in various Sampson Bladen locations, including
Bah’s stores.
After unearthing these violations, Sampson Bladen terminated Bah’s employment
on July 7, 2022, citing “[p]erformance issue[s],” including “[c]ontinuous failure[s]” to
3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 4 of 7
ensure compliance with company policies and procedures and to communicate effectively
with superiors. J.A. 1143, 2182.
II.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and making
all inferences in the light most favorable to Bah, the nonmoving party. Hood-Wilson v. Bd.
of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. of Balt. Cnty., 162 F.4th 101, 105 (4th Cir. 2025). We agree with the
district court’s thorough analysis, which we briefly outline below.
A.
Under McDonnell Douglas Co. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), Title VII
discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence must pass a three-stage test in order
to survive summary judgment. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of
discrimination. Assuming such a case exists, the defendant then has the opportunity to
furnish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for the adverse employment action. If the
defendant meets its burden of production, the plaintiff must then establish that the
defendant’s proffered rationale was merely a pretextual guise for underlying
discrimination. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303, 308–09 (2025). While
Bah met her prima facie burden, she did not provide adequate evidence of pretext.
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must make four
showings: (1) that she belongs to a protected class, (2) that she was subject to an adverse
employment action, (3) that she had been meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations,
and (4) that circumstances raise a reasonable inference that the adverse action constitutes
4 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 5 of 7
unlawful discrimination. Hood-Wilson, 162 F.4th at 105. The district court appropriately
found that Bah met this minimum threshold.
First, no one contests Bah’s membership in a protected class. Second, Bah
established viable adverse employment actions in the form of the additional burden of
Store 98 and her ultimate termination. Third, Bah’s positive performance evaluations and
salary raises highlight that she fulfilled her employer’s legitimate expectations. And lastly,
the fact that individuals outside Bah’s protected class were allowed to decline supervision
of Store 98 and that such an individual replaced Bah as district manager raise a reasonable
inference of unlawful discrimination. See Miles v. Dell, Inc., 429 F.3d 480, 487–88 (4th
Cir. 2005).
Next, the district court found that Sampson Bladen had met its burden to produce
evidence supportive of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for the adverse
employment actions. Sampson Bladen required Bah to supervise Store 98 to ensure a more
efficient allocation of resources. Bah oversaw eight stores; the white district managers who
were allowed to decline the additional responsibility oversaw ten. Furthermore, Sampson
Bladen terminated Bah because of her consistent issues with communication and the
egregious conditions at Store 80. As the district court observed, a company official attested
that the “issues at Store 80 were the worst [he] had ever seen in [his] time with [Sampson
Bladen]” and “[w]hether [Bah] was aware of all of these issues or not, she should have
been if she was doing her job as a [district manager] correctly.” J.A. 440, 1150. And the
district court properly rejected Bah’s assertions that such testimonial evidence deserved
little or no weight.
5 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 6 of 7
Bah did not sufficiently combat these legitimate justifications for the adverse
employment actions. To demonstrate pretext, Bah can adduce various forms of
circumstantial evidence that undermine Sampson Bladen’s proffered rationale. See
Wannamaker-Amos v. Purem Novi, Inc., 126 F.4th 244, 257 (4th Cir. 2025). This may
include evidence that the company’s explanation was “inconsistent over time, false, or
based on mistakes of fact,” Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219, 225 (4th Cir.
2019), or “[e]vidence that [the] company failed to follow its own disciplinary policies,”
Wannamaker-Amos, 126 F.4th at 260; see also Hollis v. Morgan State Univ., 153 F.4th
369, 383 (4th Cir. 2025).
The district court correctly found that Bah did not make any such showing. First,
Bah’s allegation of inconsistency fails because the record shows repeated reference to
performance issues, particularly those involving Bah’s poor communication skills and
mismanagement of Store 80. Second, Sampson Bladen provided ample explanation for
why it deviated from a progressive disciplinary approach: the conditions at Store 80 were
so egregious that immediate termination constituted an appropriate response, not an
“‘extreme overreaction’ to a minor infraction.” Wannamaker-Amos, 126 F.4th at 260
(quoting Westmoreland v. TWC Admin. LLC, 924 F.3d 718, 728 (4th Cir. 2019)).
In sum, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Bah’s Title VII claim was
appropriate.
B. REDA protects employees from “retaliatory action” once they “[f]ile a claim or
complaint, initiate any inquiry, investigation, inspection, proceeding or other action, or 6 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1877 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2026 Pg: 7 of 7
testify or provide information to any person with respect to” various state laws, including
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(1). In order to succeed
on her REDA claim, Bah must make three showings: (1) that she engaged in a statutorily
protected activity, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that a causal
nexus exists between the protected activity and the employer’s alleged retaliation. Edwards
v. PCS Phosphate Co., 812 F. Supp. 2d 689, 693 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
Here, the district court correctly held that making complaints or suggestions to
supervisors does not qualify as a protected activity under REDA. And Bah never brought
her complaints about store managers’ overtime pay to anyone outside her direct chain of
supervision. Moreover, most of her “complaints” merely suggested that overtime pay
would aid store manager retention; she did not provide evidence that she raised concerns
about Sampson Bladen’s legal responsibilities. Thus, Bah never made a qualifying
complaint under REDA.
III.
Bah has offered no evidence of pretext in this case. Rather, the record reveals a
consistent history of poor communication, a confluence of nightmarish circumstances at
Store 80, and a fair allocation of management resources. Therefore, as the district court
concluded in its fine opinion, Sampson Bladen remained well within its rights to assign
Store 98 to Bah and to terminate her for performance issues. We thus affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED