Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-2432
AMY D. FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERIZON SOUTH, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Richmond.
Dennis W. Dohnal, U.S.
Magistrate Judge. (3:09-cv-00737-DWD)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 8, 2011
PER CURIAM:
Amy
D.
Francisco
appeals
from
the
district
courts
The
We affirm.
I.
When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, as here,
we
construe
the
nonmoving party.
F.3d
253,
258
facts
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
Cir.
1998).
Francisco,
who
is
African
American, worked for Verizon and its predecessor from 1988 until
her termination on March 6, 2008.
As part of her
He
Specifically,
Albert
On one side of
each card was a command to cheer, and on the other an image from
2
and
its
hostility.
display
J.A.
as
41.
racist
Although
act
she
of
was
intimidation
and
outraged
the
by
December
2007,
well
before
Francisco
filed
her
Albert is
responsible
for
the
reductions
needed
making
to
initial
compensate
recommendations
for
the
of
companys
Id. 326.
force
decreased
As Albert
on
February
departments
4,
approved
2008.
the
The
human
recommendation
resources
on
and
February
legal
28,
and
Neither
process--learned
of
Franciscos
cue-card
the
same
time
that
her
termination
was
being
24, 2008 meeting with Louise Shutler and Faye Harrison, members
of
the
Verizon
investigate
Security
Franciscos
cue-card
team.
The
three-day
meeting
unexcused
was
arranged
absence
from
to
work
incident
to
Shutler
and
Harrison,
but
Shutler
had forgotten to forward the complaint and had not spoken with a
single person about the issue.
No further
learning
of
her
termination,
Francisco
filed
employment
incidents
with
intimidation.
at
Verizon
work
of
in
race
retaliation
for
discrimination
complaining
and
racial
J.A. 37.
appeals.
II.
A party is entitled to summary judgment if it shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Civ. P. 56(a).
Fed. R.
who
fails
to
make
showing
sufficient
to
establish
the
that
party
will
bear
the
burden
of
proof
at
trial.
To resist
574,
586
(1986),
and
the
party
cannot
defeat
summary
review
de
novo
district
courts
granting
of
III.
Title VIIs retaliation provision forbids an employer to
discriminate against any of his employees . . . because [the
employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment
practice.
42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a).
three-step
framework
claims.
when
assessing
Title
VII
retaliation
the
Id.
presumption
of
retaliation
6
by
articulating
non-
retaliatory
reason
for
its
action.
Id.
If
the
defendant
Id.
establish
the
necessary
prima
facie
case
of
Id.
must
generally
show
at
the
very
least
that
the
show that Francisco fails to meet this most basic element of the
causation prong.
Only
two
individuals
at
Verizon
exercised
direct
The
role--albeit
most
formal
role--in
approving
Franciscos
complaint
inexorably
prior
fails,
to
and
her
official
summary
termination.
judgment
is
Her
appropriate.
claim
We
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED