Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cacie Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Company, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Fairmont Supply Company in a case where Cacie Biddle alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under the West Virginia Human Rights Act and West Virginia common law. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and found no reversible error, agreeing that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and Fairmont was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2175

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Fairmont Supply Company in a case where Cacie Biddle alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under the West Virginia Human Rights Act and West Virginia common law. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and found no reversible error, agreeing that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and Fairmont was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views4 pages

    Cacie Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Company, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Fairmont Supply Company in a case where Cacie Biddle alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under the West Virginia Human Rights Act and West Virginia common law. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and found no reversible error, agreeing that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and Fairmont was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in its order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-2175

    CACIE BIDDLE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    FAIRMONT SUPPLY COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    CONSOL ENERGY, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 2016

    Decided:

    May 19, 2016

    Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Amanda J. Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN P.


    Virginia, for Appellant.
    Larry J. Rector,
    PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, Denielle M.
    JOHNSON, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for

    NEW, Beckley, West


    STEPTOE & JOHNSON,
    Stritch, STEPTOE &
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Cacie Biddle filed suit in state court alleging Fairmont
    Supply Company (Fairmont) unlawfully terminated her employment
    under

    West

    Rights

    Act

    Virginia
    (WVHRA).

    discrimination,
    claims.

    common

    law

    and

    the

    Specifically,

    retaliation,

    and

    West

    Biddle

    hostile

    Virginia
    alleged

    work

    Human
    gender

    environment

    Fairmont removed the action to district court.

    Biddle

    now appeals the district courts order granting summary judgment


    to Fairmont on all claims.
    We review a district courts grant of summary judgment de
    novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the
    light

    most

    favorable

    to

    the

    nonmoving

    party.

    Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014).

    Smith

    v.

    Summary judgment

    is appropriate when the movant shows that there is no genuine


    dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

    The

    relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient


    disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
    one-sided

    that

    one

    party

    must

    prevail

    as

    matter

    of

    law.

    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).


    With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties
    briefs, the material submitted in the joint appendix, and the
    district

    courts

    order,

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    3

    court.

    Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Co., No. 1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK

    (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 24, 2015).

    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

    You might also like