Sheppard v. CIH Ventures Inc ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DEBRA L. SHEPPARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIH VENTURES, INCORPORATED; CIH WOODMORE, INCORPORATED; CIH WOODMORE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; CIH PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED; CIH No. 96-2073 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and FOURPAR CORPORATION; THE CIH COMPANIES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-2252) Argued: June 4, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Gary Howard Simpson, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appel- lant. Douglas Bennett Mishkin, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Lisa A. Lavelle, MCKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Debra L. Sheppard appeals from the district court's entry of sum- mary judgment against her in her Title VII sexual harassment action against her former employer, CIH.1 CIH hired Sheppard in October 1992 as a sales associate. Sheppard claims that beginning in October 1992 her supervisor at CIH, William Scott, engaged in an ongoing pattern of sexual harassment against her until she left in January 1994. Sheppard initiated three separate courses of action. She first filed a sexual harassment charge with the EEOC. While her EEOC charge was pending, she filed an action alleging common law claims against CIH in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. Later, Shep- pard's state court action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Sheppard then filed this Title VII sexual harassment suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court granted CIH summary judgment, holding (1) that Shep- pard's Title VII and common law claims were part of the same cause of action and (2) that Sheppard's action in federal court was barred by res judicata because her Title VII claims could have been (but _________________________________________________________________ 1 CIH Ventures, Inc.; CIH Woodmore, Inc.; CIH Woodmore Limited Partnership; CIH Properties, Inc.; and CIH Development Corporation. These corporations and partnership are an affiliated group engaged in real estate development and sales in the Washington, D.C., area. 2 were not) litigated with her common law claims in state court. Shep- pard's appeal is now before us for decision. After considering the joint appendix, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thor- ough opinion. See Sheppard v. CIH Ventures, Inc. , No. JFM-95-2252 (D. Md. June 24, 1996). AFFIRMED 3