Spillers v. Brooke County Board of Education

 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA R. SPILLERS,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  No. 01-1994 BROOKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-51-5) Submitted: December 12, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL William A. Kolibash, PHILLIPS, GARDILL, KAISER & ALT- MEYER, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth D. Harter, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 2 SPILLERS v. BROOKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Cynthia R. Spillers appeals from the district court’s grant of sum- mary judgment in favor of Brooke County Board of Education ("Board") on her claim filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a) (West Supp. 2001). Spillers alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a charge of dis- crimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in June 1996. We affirm. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). To prevail on a Title VII retaliation claim, Spillers must show: (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action was taken against her; and (3) there was a causal connection between the first two elements. Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 77 F.3d 745, 754 (4th Cir. 1996). If Spillers establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Board to produce evidence of a legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for the adverse action. Texas Dep’t of Commu- nity Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). If the Board meets this burden, Spillers must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reason was pretextual and that the adverse action was motivated by discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147-48 (2000). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and joint appendix and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we SPILLERS v. BROOKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 3 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Spillers v. Brooke County Bd. of Educ., No. CA-00-51-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 11, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED