Natalia R. Wallace v. Mary Baldwin University

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2247
NATALIA R. WALLACE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARY BALDWIN UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-00017-EKD)
Submitted: April 11, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025
Before WYNN, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. Amanda M. Weaver, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Natalia R. Wallace appeals the district court’s orders dismissing for failure to state
a claim her complaints raising claims of sex discrimination and retaliation, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
“assuming as true the complaint’s factual allegations and construing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network,
LLC, 982 F.3d 258, 260 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim “that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A plaintiff can establish a discrimination claim under Title VII by two routes: she
can provide direct evidence of discrimination, or she can proceed using the burden-shifting
framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The
McDonnell Douglas framework generally requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case
for her claim; if she does, the burden then shifts to her employer to provide a non-
discriminatory reason for the allegedly discriminatory action, which the plaintiff must then
prove is pretextual. See id. at 802-04. Although “an employment discrimination plaintiff
need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss,” she
must “allege[] facts that plausibly state a violation of Title VII above a speculative level.”
Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 616-17 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. As to Wallace’s
retaliation claim, the district court did not err in finding she failed to adequately plead
causation. Nor did the district court err in finding Wallace did not adequately plead that
Mary Baldwin University’s failure to hire her to teach in the summer of 2021 was the
product of discrimination.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Wallace v. Mary Baldwin Univ.,
No. 5:22-cv-00017-EKD (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2023; Nov. 1, 2023). 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

-- 3 of 3 --