The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in a lawsuit filed by Baltimore City Fire Department Lieutenant Mitchell Waters alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

Lt. Waters, who is Black, alleged that he was treated less favorably than non-Black firefighters during the department’s disciplinary process. We covered the facts that led to his discipline in two earlier post, one being the original filing of his suit in 2023, the other being a magistrates decision last year. His lawsuit asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act.

According to the court, Lt. Waters contended that non-Black employees who engaged in more serious misconduct either received no discipline or were disciplined less severely. He also alleged that the department failed to investigate complaints he made while promptly investigating complaints made by non-Black employees. In addition, he alleged that other Black firefighters had experienced similar disparate treatment.

The Fourth Circuit explained that a disparate treatment claim requires a plaintiff to establish, among other things, that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

The court concluded that Lt. Waters failed to establish that the employees he identified were appropriate comparators. The opinion noted that his appellate brief contained lists of alleged examples of disparate treatment but “was devoid of any reference to legal authority (or explanation whatsoever) demonstrating how these examples represent truly comparable conduct absent mitigating circumstances.”

One of Lt. Waters’ claims involved the department’s handling of workplace violence complaints. He argued that after he reported an incident, the department waited approximately one week before formally responding to his complaint, while complaints filed by non-Black employees were investigated immediately. The Fourth Circuit concluded that this comparison did not establish race discrimination because Lt. Waters failed to show that the incidents were sufficiently similar or that the difference in response time amounted to a more severe disciplinary action against him.

Lt. Waters also argued that supervisors attempted to charge him with being late when he transferred between fire stations, while two non-Black firefighters who were allegedly late under similar circumstances were not disciplined. The court noted that Lt. Waters ultimately acknowledged that no late charges were actually brought against him. It further concluded that he failed to demonstrate that the attempted charges constituted an adverse employment action and that his comparison to the other firefighters was supported primarily by his own allegations rather than corroborating evidence.

Lt. Waters also claimed that a white employee, identified in the opinion as EVD Coster, was not disciplined after Lt. Waters filed a complaint against him. The Fourth Circuit concluded that this comparison did not support a discrimination claim because Lt. Waters failed to explain how Coster’s alleged conduct was comparable in seriousness to the conduct for which Lt. Waters had been disciplined.

The court also considered Lt. Waters’ allegation that he received anonymous racist and threatening text messages. While acknowledging that the messages were disturbing, the court concluded that they did not establish disparate treatment because the sender was never identified. The court noted that the Baltimore City Fire Department investigated the messages in an effort to identify the sender, and Lt. Waters failed to identify any comparable instance in which the department conducted a more extensive investigation into anonymous misconduct directed at another employee.

Because Lt. Waters failed to establish that similarly situated employees outside his protected class received more favorable treatment, the court held that he failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

The Fourth Circuit also affirmed dismissal of the hostile work environment claim. The court explained that such a claim requires proof that the harassment was based on race, was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment, and could be attributed to the employer.

Addressing the retaliation claim, the Fourth Circuit found that Lt. Waters failed to adequately develop the argument on appeal. Although his brief discussed the legal standards governing retaliation, the court concluded that he offered only a conclusory assertion that the district court had failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to him. The court held that this undeveloped argument was waived.

The Fourth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the City on all claims.