Cacie Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Company, a foreign corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2175
CACIE BIDDLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FAIRMONT SUPPLY COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CONSOL ENERGY, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK)
Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amanda J. Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN P. NEW, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Larry J. Rector, STEPTOE & JOHNSON,
PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, Denielle M. Stritch, STEPTOE &
JOHNSON, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Cacie Biddle filed suit in state court alleging Fairmont
Supply Company (“Fairmont”) unlawfully terminated her employment
under West Virginia common law and the West Virginia Human
Rights Act (WVHRA). Specifically, Biddle alleged gender
discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment
claims. Fairmont removed the action to district court. Biddle
now appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
to Fairmont on all claims.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Smith v.
Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment
is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
relevant inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the material submitted in the joint appendix, and the
district court’s order, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

-- 3 of 4 --

4
court. Biddle v. Fairmont Supply Co., No. 1:14-cv-00122-FPS-JSK
(N.D. W. Va. Sept. 24, 2015). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --