Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
No. 15-1054
CHRISELDA GUERRERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00729-TSE-IDD)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 7, 2015
PER CURIAM:
Chriselda Guerrero filed a complaint in the district court
alleging several violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of
1964,
42
U.S.C.
2000e-2000e(17)
(2012),
and
the
Civil
We affirm.
We review a
focus
only
on
the
legal
sufficiency
of
the
complaint.
We
view the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
of
the
action.
29
C.F.R.
1614.105(a)(1)
(2010).
Guerrero does not contest the fact that she failed to initiate
counseling within 45 days of the personnel action, but argues
2
discriminatory
act
occurred,
not
when
it
was
discovered.
Hamilton v. 1st Source Bank, 928 F.2d 86, 87-88 (4th Cir. 1990)
(en
banc).
Moreover,
while
the
limitations
period
may
be
The
1573
(Fed.
7511(a)(1)(A)(i)
jurisdictional
Cir.
(2012).
findings
intertwined
with
plaintiffs
claims
1994);
the
of
We
fact
facts
under
the
see
review
on
any
central
U.S.C.
district
courts
issues
to
clearly
also
the
that
are
not
merits
of
the
erroneous
standard
of
Guerreros
probationary
whether
procedural
she
was
safeguards
demoted
-
the
status
was
not
intertwined
accordance
district
3
with
court
the
first
CSRAs
had
to
Guerreros
contention
to
the
contrary.
Thus,
the
summary
judgment
retaliation
concerning
allegations
she
review
de
judgment.
novo
an
claimed
a
to
the
internal
improper
district
USMS
on
affairs
travel
courts
her
claim
of
investigation
into
reimbursements.
We
order
granting
summary
party.
Id.
at
565
n.1
(internal
quotation
marks
Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We
apply
the
familiar
McDonnell
Douglas
framework
of
Md.-E.
Shore,
787
F.3d
243,
250
(4th
for
Foster v.
Cir.
2015).
Guerrero must first establish a prima facie case that (1) she
engaged
in
protected
activity,
(2)
her
employer
took
an
Id.
Once a
prima
must
show
facie
case
is
established,
the
USMS
then
Id.
If there
is such a reason, then Guerrero has the burden to show that the
reason was a pretext for retaliation.
Id.
from
discipline
merely
by
An employee is not
engaging
in
protected
170 F.3d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 1999) (Employers retain . . . the
right to discipline or terminate employees for any legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason.).
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED