• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 
E
QUAL
E
MPLOYMENT
O
PPORTUNITY
C
OMMISSION
,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.No. 08-1181
C
ENTRAL
W
HOLESALERS
,I
NCORPORATED
,
 Defendant-Appellee.
 
E
QUAL
E
MPLOYMENT
O
PPORTUNITY
C
OMMISSION
,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.No. 08-2018
C
ENTRAL
W
HOLESALERS
,I
NCORPORATED
,
 Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Courtfor the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge.(8:06-cv-01673-PJM)Argued: March 27, 2009Decided: July 21, 2009
 
Before WILLIAMS,
1
Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE,Circuit Judges.Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded by publishedopinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee joined.
COUNSELARGUED:
Daniel Travis Vail, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOY-MENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.,for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fred SaulSommer, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY &ECKER, PA, Rockville, Maryland, for Central Wholesalers,Incorporated.
ON BRIEF:
Ronald S. Cooper, General Coun-sel, Vincent J. Blackwood, Acting Associate General Coun-sel, Carolyn L. Wheeler, Acting Associate General Counsel,Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. EQUALEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Wash-ington, D.C., for Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-sion. Meredith S. Campbell, SHULMAN, ROGERS,GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, PA, Rockville, Maryland, forCentral Wholesalers, Incorporated.
1
Chief Judge Williams heard oral argument in this case but did not par-ticipate in the decision. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pur-suant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
2EEOC v. C
ENTRAL
W
HOLESALERS
, I
NC
.
 
OPINION
SHEDD, Circuit Judge:This appeal arises from a civil rights action brought by theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of LaTonya Medley, an African-American female. The EEOCalleges that Medley’s former employer, Central Wholesalers,Inc. ("Central"), subjected her to a hostile work environmentbased on her gender and race and constructively dischargedher. The district court granted summary judgment for Centralbut denied Central’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Both partiesappealed. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the districtcourt’s grant of summary judgment, affirm its order on attor-neys’ fees, and remand for further proceedings.IWhen reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judg-ment, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to thenonmoving party, which in this case is the EEOC.
See Laber v. Harvey
, 438 F.3d 404, 415 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc).Viewed in this light, the facts are as follows.A.Central is a maintenance supply company located in Laurel,Maryland. Central hired Medley in 2002, and she startedworking in the company’s Inside Sales department in Septem-ber 2004, where she worked until her employment ended inNovember 2004. Medley’s supervisor in Inside Sales wasLynette Wright, and Wright reported directly to Central’sPresident, Drew Denicoff. Including Wright, there were atotal of eight employees in Inside Sales, and Medley was theonly African-American female. She was also the only femaleother than Wright.During the relevant time period, Central had a policyagainst discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Under the
3EEOC v. C
ENTRAL
W
HOLESALERS
, I
NC
.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...