UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2227 NOHELIA M. CASTILLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOANN URQUHART, M.D., P.C.; JOANN URQUHART, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:17-cv-01810-PX) Submitted: April 1, 2021 Decided: April 16, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael K. Amster, Philip B. Zipin, Anthony G. Bizien, ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. James D. Baldridge, Robin S. Burroughs, Courtney A. Sullivan, VENABLE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nohelia Castillo appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her former employers, Joann Urquhart and Joann Urquhart, M.D., P.C. (“Practice”), (collectively, “Defendants”), on her unpaid overtime and retaliation claims raised under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a)(1), 215(a)(3), and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-420, 428 (West 2011). Upon our review, we conclude that the district correctly granted summary judgments to Defendants on Castillo’s retaliation claims but erred in granting summary judgment on Castillo’s overtime claims. We therefore affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s order, and remand for further proceedings. A court may “grant summary judgment only if, taking the facts in the best light for the nonmoving party, no material facts are disputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ausherman v. Bank of Am. Corp., 352 F.3d 896, 899 (4th Cir. 2003). We review the district court’s award of summary judgment de novo. Brooks v. Johnson, 924 F.3d 104, 111 (4th Cir. 2019). In other words, we, like the district court, must review the facts in the light most favorable to Castillo, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. Id. If the record, so viewed, gives rise to genuine factual disputes about whether Castillo worked uncompensated overtime hours or whether Defendants retaliated against her, then those questions must be resolved by a jury, not by the court on summary judgment. Id. at 111–12. A dispute is “genuine” for these purposes so long as a reasonable jury could resolve it in Castillo’s favor. See Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 568 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Turning first to Castillo’s retaliation claims, an employer’s lawsuit against her current or former employee can “constitute an act of unlawful retaliation . . . when the lawsuit is filed with a retaliatory motive and lacking a reasonable basis in fact or law.” Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334, 341 (4th Cir. 2008). A suit has a reasonable basis in fact if it raises “a genuine issue of material fact that turns on the credibility of witnesses or on the proper inferences to be drawn from undisputed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals