USCA4 Appeal: 23-1511 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1511

JAMES TIMOTHY COOK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION, d/b/a Steel Dynamics Roanoke Bar Division,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00040-EKD)

Submitted: November 18, 2024 Decided: December 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas E. Strelka, STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Elaine D. McCafferty, Charlottesville, Virginia, Agnis C. Chakravorty, WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1511 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

James Timothy Cook appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment

in favor of his former employer, Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation, d/b/a Steel Dynamics

Roanoke Bar Division (“RESCO”), on Cook’s Virginia state law retaliatory discharge

claims brought under

and 40.1-51.2:1 (2023). Cook alleged

that RESCO terminated his employment based on his protected act of reporting a potential

safety violation in the workplace. We affirm.

We “review[] the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the

same legal standards as the district court and viewing the facts and inferences drawn from

the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Perkins v. Int’l Paper Co.,

(4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Summary judgment is appropriate “if 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). “A factual dispute is

genuine only where the nonmovant’s version is supported by sufficient evidence to permit

a reasonable jury to find in [his] favor.” United States v. 8.929 Acres of Land,

(4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). To survive summary judgment, “the nonmoving

party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one

inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.”

(internal

quotation marks omitted).

Virginia Code § 40.1-27.3, Virginia’s whistleblower statute, provides that “[a]n

employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, discriminate against, or penalize an

employee, or take other retaliatory action . . . because the employee[] . . . in good faith

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1511 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

reports a violation of any federal or state law or regulation to a supervisor or to any

governmental body or law-enforcement official.”

. An

employer may defend against an action brought under this statute by showing that an

employee made a report “knowing that [it was] false or that [it was] in reckless disregard

of the truth.”

(B)(2).

Similarly, Virginia Code § 40.1-51.2:1 provides that:

No person shall discharge or in any way discriminate against an employee because the employee has filed a safety or health complaint or has testified or otherwise acted to exercise rights under the safety and health provisions of this title for themselves or others.

:1. Thus, to state a claim under this section, an employee must

assert that (1) he has been terminated or retaliated against for (2) partaking in a protected

activity, such as filing a safety or health complaint, and it was (3) related to the safety,

health, and welfare of employees.

The record establishes that RESCO did not terminate Cook’s employment because

he reported a safety or health complaint or reported a violation of a federal or state law or

regulation. Rather, RESCO terminated Cook’s employment for his act of sending an email

that mischaracterized the nature of the work assigned to him by his supervisors and

escalating the issue up the chain of command, knowing that, if true, the contents of his

email would expose his supervisors to potential disciplinary action. Indeed, Cook

acknowledged that he knew that the content of his email inaccurately relayed the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1511 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/19/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

instructions given to him by his supervisors. The district court therefore properly granted

summary judgment to RESCO on Cook’s retaliation claims. *

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

* In so concluding, we assume without deciding—as the district court did—that a plaintiff may bring a cause of action under both statutes and expressly decline to address the question of whether a plaintiff may maintain a claim under § 40.1-27.3 while also bringing a claim under § 40.1-51.2:1.

4