Velten v. Brown ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    DOLORES A. VELTEN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    JESSE BROWN, Secretary, Department
    of Veterans Affairs; D. MARK
    No. 97-2123
    CATLETT; ALLAN LOUIS DRUCKER;
    RAY SNOW; ROBERT J. WOODS,
    Commissioner, Federal
    Telecommunications Services;
    SHERMAN NAIDORF,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.
    (CA-96-935-K)
    Submitted: May 29, 1998
    Decided: September 2, 1998
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL,
    Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Linda Koerber Boyd, SCHWARTZ, BOYD & METZ, P.A., Balti-
    more, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States
    Attorney, A. David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Dolores A. Velten appeals from the district court's grant of sum-
    mary judgment in favor of the Defendants in her Title VII action
    alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Finding no error in the
    district court's order, we affirm.
    This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. See
    Higgins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 
    863 F.2d 1162
     (4th Cir.
    1988). Summary judgment is properly granted when there are no gen-
    uine issues of material fact and when the record, taken as a whole
    could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.
    See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 
    477 U.S. 317
    , 323 (1986). All reason-
    able inferences are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. See
    Cole v. Cole, 
    633 F.2d 1083
    , 1092 (4th Cir. 1980).
    Velten filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging
    that she was subject to gender and reprisal discrimination during her
    employment with the Veterans' Administration ("VA"). The VA
    offered Velten a unilateral promise of full relief, providing her with
    fifteen days in which to respond. At the end of this time period, Vel-
    ten rejected the offer and issued a counter-offer which the VA
    rejected. Given Velten's rejection, the ALJ remanded Velten's case
    to the agency with instructions to dismiss it as moot. Velten claims
    that prior to the expiration of the fifteen-day consideration period, the
    VA orally withdrew the unilateral promise. She therefore contends
    that there was no viable offer at the time of her"rejection" and that
    dismissal of her claim on that basis was improper.
    2
    A federal employee is required to exhaust administrative remedies
    prior to commencement of suit for employment discrimination. If the
    employee rejects a settlement offer for full relief, she has not
    exhausted her remedies and therefore may not bring suit under Title
    VII. See 
    29 C.F.R. § 1613.220
    (b) (1997); see also Francis v. Brown,
    
    58 F.3d 191
    , 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Velten will bear the burden
    of proof on this issue at trial, she must offer verified evidence that the
    VA withdrew its offer in order to survive the VA's motion for sum-
    mary judgment. See Celotex, 
    477 U.S. at 322-24
     (1986). The joint
    appendix contains no such evidence. In addition, even if Velten's
    claims were before the court, the court properly concluded that they
    failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's
    grant of summary judgment in favor of the VA. 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