Sandra Robinson v. Nielsen Tv Ratings

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2391
SANDRA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NIELSEN TV RATINGS,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS)
Submitted: April 20, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John M. Barr, JACKSON LEWIS,
LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Robinson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), her complaint
against her former employer, The Nielsen Company, LLC
(“Nielsen”), alleging racial discrimination, hostile work
environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-
2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error with respect to the district
court’s adjudication of Robinson’s claims of racial
discrimination and hostile work environment. Accordingly, as to
those claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Robinson v. Nielsen TV Ratings, No. 3:10-cv-00009-JRS
(E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2010).
A review of the record demonstrates, however, that
Robinson has alleged facts sufficient to withstand a motion to
dismiss her claim of retaliation. To establish a prima facie
case of retaliation, Robinson must show: (1) she engaged in a
protected activity; (2) Nielsen acted adversely against her; and
(3) the protected activity was causally connected to the adverse
action. Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 218
(4th Cir. 2007). In her complaint, Robinson alleges that she
made three reports of racial harassment to her supervisor and
that she was fired less than a month after making her third

-- 2 of 3 --

3
report. Accordingly, Robinson has alleged facts sufficient to
withstand a motion to dismiss as to her claim of retaliation.
Yahenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 551
(4th Cir. 2006) (holding temporal proximity between protected
activity and adverse action can provide prima facie showing of
causality).
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district
court’s order dismissing Robinson’s retaliation claims under
Rule 12(b)(6) and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion. 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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --