Dr. Kenneth Taylor v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2298
DR. KENNETH TAYLOR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:21-cv-01469-PJM)
Submitted: January 10, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025
Before HEYTENS and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and Elizabeth W. HANES, United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Ruth Ann Azeredo, LAW OFFICE OF RUTH ANN AZEREDO LLC,
Annapolis, Maryland; Timothy W. Romberger, LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY W.
ROMBERGER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney,
Molissa H. Farber, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
An employee of the Food and Drug Administration sued the Department of Health
and Human Services, alleging various acts of employment discrimination and retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Department. Reviewing that decision
de novo, see, e.g., Randall v. United States, 95 F.3d 339, 348 (4th Cir. 1996), we affirm.
On appeal, the employee presses three claims: sex discrimination and retaliation in
not selecting him for a senior leadership position at the National Institute of Health and a
retaliatory hostile work environment while he was working at the FDA. The district court
concluded all three claims failed as a matter of law. We see no reversible error in those
determinations.
The first two claims fail because the employee provided no evidence that either his
sex or retaliation played any role in the hiring decision. And the retaliatory hostile work
environment claim fails for two reasons. First, the employee identified no evidence
sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the allegedly harassing
conduct was motivated by retaliatory animus. Second, we conclude the allegedly harassing
conduct was not “sufficiently severe or pervasive that it would dissuade a reasonable
worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Laurent-Workman v.
Wormuth, 54 F.4th 201, 218 (4th Cir. 2022).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional
process. The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --