Johnny Newbill v. Washington Gas Light Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1500
JOHNNY NEWBILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01019-LO-TCB)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ardra M. O'Neal, THE O'NEAL FIRM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. L. Edward Funk, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Newbill, an African-American male, appeals from
the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and
dismissal of his action alleging that his employer, Washington
Gas Light Company, discriminated and retaliated against him in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (2006), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(2006), allegedly based upon his race. Specifically, Newbill
alleges on appeal that he was discriminated and retaliated
against relative to assignment of work resulting in reduced
payment of overtime, and that he was subjected to a racially
hostile work environment. Our review of the record and the
district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without
merit.
We conclude that the district court correctly
determined that Newbill failed to establish a prima facie case
of either discrimination, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973); James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton,
Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir. 2004), or retaliation, see
King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 150-51 (4th Cir. 2003).
Specifically, Newbill produced no evidence of any adverse
employment action. As the district court noted, Newbill
received no decrease in pay, job title, level of responsibility,
or loss of opportunity for promotion. In fact, the record

-- 2 of 4 --

3
reflects just the opposite—his salary and overtime pay increased
steadily over the years and is commensurate with his fellow
Caucasian coworkers,1 he continues to perform union-eligible
Grade 8 duties, he holds the highest level union-eligible job
available under his union contract and receives the highest pay
available for that job, he has no disciplinary reports on his
record, and he remains an active Washington Gas union-eligible
employee. Newbill’s own, unsubstantiated claims of
discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s adverse
grant of summary judgment and dismissal of Newbill’s action. We
are
insufficient to withstand summary judgment. See, e.g., Thompson
v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002)
(noting that “[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not
suffice” to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact).
1 Specifically, relevant to the overtime issue, Newbill had
approximately the same amount of overtime as other Washington
Gas Senior Welders and, since, 2004 his overtime earnings
increased yearly, except for 2008, which minimal decrease easily
is accounted for by time Newbill was unable to work for health
reasons. In fact, review of Newbill’s overtime earnings records
reflects that his overtime pay increased from several thousands
of dollars per year in 2003 to over five times that amount in
2008.
2 Newbill has provided no evidence of conduct by the
employer that demonstrates that his work conditions were
sufficiently extreme to establish an actionable hostile work
environment claim. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S.
775, 788 (1998).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --