Natalia Wallace v. Mary Baldwin University

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 23-2247
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2247 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2247

NATALIA R. WALLACE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARY BALDWIN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-00017-EKD)

Submitted: April 11, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025

Before WYNN, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Amanda M. Weaver, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2247 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Natalia R. Wallace appeals the district court’s orders dismissing for failure to state

a claim her complaints raising claims of sex discrimination and retaliation, in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to

2000e-17. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

“assuming as true the complaint’s factual allegations and construing all reasonable

inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network,

LLC, 982 F.3d 258, 260 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). To survive a

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim “that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

A plaintiff can establish a discrimination claim under Title VII by two routes: she

can provide direct evidence of discrimination, or she can proceed using the burden-shifting

framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The

McDonnell Douglas framework generally requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case

for her claim; if she does, the burden then shifts to her employer to provide a non-

discriminatory reason for the allegedly discriminatory action, which the plaintiff must then

prove is pretextual. See id. at 802-04. Although “an employment discrimination plaintiff

need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss,” she

must “allege[] facts that plausibly state a violation of Title VII above a speculative level.”

Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 616-17 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2247 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. As to Wallace’s

retaliation claim, the district court did not err in finding she failed to adequately plead

causation. Nor did the district court err in finding Wallace did not adequately plead that

Mary Baldwin University’s failure to hire her to teach in the summer of 2021 was the

product of discrimination.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Wallace v. Mary Baldwin Univ.,

No. 5:22-cv-00017-EKD (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2023; Nov. 1, 2023). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

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

AFFIRMED