Adeline B. Benjamin v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2152
ADELINE B. BENJAMIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-02990-DKC)
Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: July 24, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the United
States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), on her claim alleging
retaliation and discrimination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2006), and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (2006).
Benjamin is employed as a Grants and Agreement
Specialist with the USDA. Benjamin has filed several Equal
Employment Opportunity administrative complaints based on age,
gender, and retaliation, all of which have been decided in favor
of the USDA. Benjamin’s prior complaint filed in the district
court was dismissed on summary judgment, and this court affirmed
the dismissal on appeal. Benjamin v. Veneman, 1 F. App’x 192
(4th Cir. Mar. 8, 2007).
The essential facts underlying this appeal are that
Benjamin was suspended for fourteen days due to her failure to
follow supervisory instructions. Benjamin filed a
discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, which denied her claims. Thereafter, Benjamin filed
a complaint in the district court, claiming the suspension
constituted adverse action in retaliation for filing prior
complaints, in violation of the ADEA and Title VII. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
employer, finding Benjamin failed to establish a prima facie
case and failed to rebut the legitimate non-discriminatory
reasons for the suspension offered by her employer.
After conducting de novo review of the district
court’s grant of summary judgment, Holland v. Washington Homes,
Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007), we find the undisputed
material facts entitle the employer to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). Benjamin failed to establish a
causal connection existed between the protected activity — her
prior complaints — and the asserted adverse action — her
suspension. Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53,
57 (2006); see also Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220, 229 (4th
Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Benjamin utterly failed to show that
the employer’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons
for the suspension were pretextual. See Matvia v. Bald Head
Island Mgmt., Inc., 259 F.3d 261, 271 (4th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Benjamin v. Vilsack, No. 8:07-cv-02990-DKC (D.
Md. Aug. 22, 2008). 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

-- 3 of 3 --