H. Renee Baker v. Prince George’s County, Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1883
H. RENEE BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
BRUCE M. SMOLLER, Material Witness,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-02-
3085)
Submitted: February 13, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Curtis C. Osborne, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David
S. Whitacre, County Attorney, Rajeshanand Kumar, Associate County
Attorney, Tonia Y. Belton-Gofreed, Associate County Attorney,
OFFICE OF LAW FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Upper Marlboro,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
H. Renee Baker, formerly employed as a police officer by
Prince George’s County, Maryland (“the County”), appeals a district
court order granting summary judgment to the County on her claims
for gender discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge,
all pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
see 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e-3(a) (West 2003). The
district court held that Baker’s gender discrimination claim failed
because she had not shown that the nondiscriminatory reasons given
by the County for not promoting her were pretextual. Regarding
Baker’s retaliation claim, the district court determined that Baker
had not established a causal connection between her filing of
discrimination complaints and any adverse employment action. As to
Baker’s constructive discharge claim, the district court concluded
that there was insufficient evidence to show that the County had
deliberately subjected Baker to intolerable working conditions.
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we
conclude that the district court correctly decided the issues
before it. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Baker v. Prince George’s County, No. RWT-02-3085,
Hr’g Tr. (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2004). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

-- 3 of 4 --

4
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --