Smith v. Cnty of Culpeper Va ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA A. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF CULPEPER, VIRGINIA;
No. 99-1157
CULPEPER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES; CALVIN L.
COLEMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-3-3)
Submitted: August 24, 1999
Decided: September 9, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
C. Waverly Parker, Sr., Standardsville, Virginia, for Appellant. Rob-
ert A. Dybing, John A. Gibney, Jr., SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Patricia A. Smith appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellees in her Title VII action, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1994). We have reviewed the record, find no
reversible error, and affirm.
Smith first claims that the district court erred when it granted sum-
mary judgment to Appellee Calvin Coleman. Coleman was not indi-
vidually liable for violations of Title VII; thus, the district court
properly granted summary judgment on this claim. See Lissau v.
Southern Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 180 (4th Cir. 1998).
We further find that summary judgment was properly granted to
Appellees County of Culpeper, Virginia, and to the Culpeper County
Department of Social Services. We assume for the purposes of this
appeal that Coleman's ambiguous "road trip" statement was a propo-
sition. Even assuming that Smith properly raised her quid pro quo
claim before the district court, Appellees were entitled to summary
judgment because she failed to adduce any facts showing that Cole-
man fulfilled the alleged threat to reduce her salary. See Burlington
Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, ___, 118 S. Ct. 2257, 2264-65
(1998); Brown v. Perry, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 504814 (4th Cir.
July 14, 1999) (No. 97-1501). Further, we find that Smith did not
adduce facts sufficient to support a jury's finding that she was con-
structively discharged. See Andrade v. Mayfair Management, Inc., 88
F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 1996); Bristow v. Daily Press, Inc., 770 F.2d
1251, 1255 (4th Cir. 1985). We also find that a jury, when viewing
the totality of the circumstances from the standpoint of a reasonable
person in Smith's position, could not find Coleman's isolated state-
ment to be so extreme as to amount to a change in the terms and con-
ditions of Smith's employment. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,
524 U.S. 775, ___, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2283 (1998).
2
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the Court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3