Juanita Crouch v. SunCakes NC, LLC - Employment Discrimination and Wage Dispute

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1 579 JUANITA CROUCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUNCAKES NC, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior D istrict Judge for the Eastern District of Virg inia, sitting by designatio n. (3:23 - cv - 00 880 - JAG - SCR) Argued: December 11, 2025 D ecided: February 23, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Ju dge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in w hich Judge Wynn and J udge Benj amin joine d. Wilson Frank Fong, HENSEL LAW, PL LC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for A ppellant. Lori P. Jone s, JORDAN PRIC E WALL GRAY JO NES & CARLT ON, LLP, Ral eigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Juanita Crouch commenced this action ag ainst her former employer, SunC akes NC, LLC (“SunCakes”), alleging sexual harassment, discrimination on the basis of sex, and retaliation — all in violation of Title VII — and failu re to pay wages in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a s well as retaliation under that act. The district court granted summary jud gment to SunCakes, and we affirm. I Crouch was employed by SunCakes as a server at an IH OP restaurant in Charlotte, North Carolina. She remained so emp loyed for roughly four mont hs, during which she missed som e 26 out of 56 scheduled shifts an d was tardy and left early for many that she did not mi ss. Inde ed, duri ng her last mont h, Januar y 2022, s he was s chedule d for eig ht shifts and failed to show u p for any of them, app earing only once without notice for a 4 - hour shift on January 9, 2022. Because SunCakes ha d warned Crouch earlier ab out t hese attendance and tardiness issues, it terminated her emp loyment on January 12, 2022. Crouch claims that while working during that four - month period at the IHOP, her immediate supervisor, Shawn Ed wards, propositioned her fo r sex while the two were at work. She testified, “H e asked me if he can co me back to my place, and we could pos sibly f - - k, ” and s he responded, “n o, ” explaining, “I don’t involve myself with people at my jo b. . . as far as me and you having any consensual thing ou tside of work, its not going to happen.” Crouch also stated th at Edwards “offer[ed] [her] a ride home on multip le occasions” and that she repeatedly said, “No, I have a ride, and I don ’t want to see you

3 personally. I don’t want to sleep with you.” Th ese propositions, as Crouch testified, made her feel “uncomfortable and awkward.” Crouch also testified t o a n occasion when Edwards, in her presence, pu t another woman on speaker phone to lewdly d escribe a prior sexual encounter. Crouch complained about Edwards’ conduct to the restaurant’s g eneral m anager, Audra Causey, who acknowledged that other female employees had made similar complaints. Causey told Crouch that she shoul d give Caus ey a written statement describing the incidents, and Crouch agreed. Crouch, however, never got aro und to do ing so before her termination. During her four - month employment, Crouch also complained to Causey that she was hired as a server at $2.13 per hour plus t ips but that she was requ ired, at times, to do hostess duties, like filli ng to - go orders, where sh e still got paid $2.13 per hour but received no tips. She noted that her low wage as a server coul d not be just ified whe n working on to - go orders because she did not receive tips for that work. She asked that she be paid the minimum wage of $7.25/hour while working o n hostess - related resp o nsibilities. SunCakes manageme nt, however, declined her request. A little more than a year after Crouch’s em ployment at SunCake s was terminated, Crouch filed a complaint in North Carolina state cou rt against SunCakes for unpaid wages related to her hostess duties and for retaliation by terminating her in response to her wage complaints. The Superior Cou rt of Mecklenburg conducted a jury trial, during wh ich Crouch testified as the sole witness. After sh e testified, the state court granted Su nCakes’ motion for a directed verdict and dismissed Crouch’ s state causes of action with prejudice.

4 The court held that there was no tri able wage and hour claim b ecause Crouch had stipulated that the total pay she received from SunCakes, includ ing base wage and tips, was in excess of the minimum wage. With regard to her retaliation claim, the court found that Crouch’s evidence failed to “rais[e] more than a suspicion, conjecture, guess, surmise or speculation.” Several months after filing her state wage and hour claim, Crouch commenced this action, alleging hostile work environment, discrimination on the basis of sex, and retaliation, and subsequently amended her complaint to include claims for unpaid wages and retaliation under the federal Fair Labor Stan dards Act. On SunCakes ’ motion, the district court ultimately granted SunCakes summary judgment on all of Crouc h ’s claims. On the hostile work environment or sexual harassment claim, the court concluded that Crouch failed to provide any corroborative evidence that Edwards’ offensive comm ents were severe and pervasive conduct. On her sex discrimination claim, the court concluded that Cro uch had failed to make a prima facie case, as no reasonabl e jury could find that h er job performance was satisfactory. On her retaliation claim, the c ourt conclude d that Crouc h had indeed made out a p rima facie case but that she failed to meet her burden to show that SunCakes’ proffered nondiscriminato ry reason for her termination — her absenteeism and tardiness — was pretextual. Finally, on the FLSA claims, the court held that Crouch’s claims we re barred by the two - year statute of limitations. From the district court’s judgment dated M ay 2, 2025, Crouch filed this appeal.

5 II With respect to Crouch’s allegation of sexua l harassment under Title V II, insofar as it supported her hosti le work envi ronment claim, we acknowledge that Edwards’ proposals to Crouc h for after - work sex were totally unacceptable, as was his playing a lewd telephone call in her presence. While it might be well argued that such conduct was no t sufficiently severe or pervasive to amount to illegal sexual harassment, Crouch reasonably claimed that it made her feel “uncomfortable and awkward.” To establish credib ility as to this characterization, Crouch testified that she contemporaneously told a friend, several coworkers, and the gen eral manager about Edwards’ condu ct. Yet she failed to provide any corrob or ating evidence from th o se sources. As w e have explained, “we generally consider self - serving opinions w ithout objective corroboration not significan tly probative.” Evans v. Tech. App. & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Ci r. 1996); see a lso Willia ms v. Giant Food Inc., 3 70 F.3d 423, 433 (4th Cir. 2004) (“merely a self - serving opinion . .. cannot, absent objective corrob oration, defeat summary judgment”). T h is wa s not a situation where corroborative evidence wa s unavailable due to the circumstances of the harassment. To be sure, Cro uch did te stify that she complain ed to Causey, the restaurant ’s general manager, but she also acknowledged that th e manager told Crouch to give her a statement, which Crouch agreed to do. Bu t, a s Crouch acknowledged, she never got around to doing so. A s a consequence, there was no contemporaneous written statement. In these circumstances, we conclude that the district court d id not err in granting SunCakes summary judgment on this claim.

6 With respect to Crouch’s Title VII discrimination claim — whether the discrimination was effected by sex ual harassment or animus or however Crouch alleged it — Crouch ultimately failed to demonstrate that SunCakes ’ non - discriminatory reason for her termination was a pretext. SunCakes terminated Crouch due to her “b latant and ongoing violation of company policy related to absenteeism,” and the record supports its claim. As the district court su mmarized the record, Crouch co nsistently missed her scheduled shifts, often with little or no notice, and when she did make it to work, she frequently arrived late and left early. Th e court pointed out that Crouch mis sed 26 out of 56 total sched uled shifts, and in January, she m issed all 8 o f her scheduled shifts prior to her termination. Upon SunCakes ’ produc tion of th is legitimate, non - discriminatory reason for its terminati o n of Crouch ’s employment, the burden s hifted to Crouch to e stablish that the reason given by Sun C akes was not the true reason but a pretext for u nlawful discrimination. See Mc Donnell Doug las Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 79 2, 802 – 05 (1973). Crouch has not produced such evidence. Thus, a s the record stand s, there is not one scintilla of evidence suggesting that the reason SunCakes terminated Crouch’s employment was because of sex. A nd a s to Crouch ’s Title VII retaliation claim, Crouch alleged that the termination of her employment was in retaliat ion for her complaining about Edwards’ sexual advances. Again, Crouch di d complain t o Causey, the restaurant manager, but Causey re sponded that Crouch should write up a statement, which Crouch agreed to do, but never did. There is no evidence in the record, however, that that exch ange was a reason for SunCakes’ terminatin g her employment. See Boyer - Liberto v. Fo untain e bleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264,

7 281 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting that the plaintiff has the bu rden of proving a “causal link” between a protected activity and an adverse employment action). And again, there is also n o evidenc e that the reason that Sun Cakes gave for her termination — ab senteeism and tardiness — w as pretextual. Finally, as to Crouch’s cla i ms under the FL S A, the district court held that Crouch filed her action more than t wo years after her action accrued and therefore was barred by the applicable statute of limitation s. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). We can find no erro r in the court’s ruling. Crouch’s emp loyment was terminated on January 12, 2022, and she filed her FL S A claim on Fe bruary 2 4, 2024. While the FL SA does extend the statute o f limitation s t o three years if the conduct alleged was “willful,” id., there is no evidence in this case that any alleged violations w ere willful as pro vided by the statute. See Desmond v. PNGI Charles To wn Gaming, L.L.C., 630 F.3d 3 51, 358 (4t h Cir. 201 1) (notin g that the employee has the bur den of pr oving willfulness). Indeed, it ap pears that there was no vio lation at all. A s the FLSA provides, a tipped employee’s wages are sufficient if, between her base wage a nd tips, the emplo y ee receive d total payment that meets th e minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 203 (m)(2)(A). The FLSA’s regulations specifically recognize that some tipped employees will work “dual jobs,” specifying that a waitress “w ho spends part of her time cleaning and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee and occasionally washing dishes or glasses” need not be paid at a separate rate for those associated, but non - tipped responsibilities. 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e). As the regulation exp lains, “[s]uch related duties in an occupation that is a tipped occupation need not by th emselves be directed toward producing tips.” Id. Based

8 on the record before th e district co urt, SunCakes did, in fact, pay Crouch minimum wage — consisting of her base pay and tips — during the entirety of her emp loymen t, a fact that Crouch has not controverted. * * * For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED