Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Benjamin v. Veneman, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Adeline B. Benjamin appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment under Title VII. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined that summary judgment was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-03-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-1280

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Adeline B. Benjamin appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment under Title VII. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined that summary judgment was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Benjamin v. Veneman, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Adeline B. Benjamin appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment under Title VII. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The appeals court determined that summary judgment was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-1280

    ADELINE B. BENJAMIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ANN
    VENEMAN,
    Secretary,
    Department of Agriculture,

    United

    States
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
    (8:05-cv-00175-PJM)

    Submitted:

    February 14, 2007

    Decided:

    March 8, 2007

    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Curtis J. Karpel, Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver


    Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
    Attorney, Ariana W. Arnold, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district courts order
    granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile
    work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000).

    Summary

    judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light


    most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues
    of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.

    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

    U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv.


    Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996).

    We have thoroughly reviewed

    the

    find

    briefs

    and

    joint

    appendix

    and

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court


    on January 30, 2006.

    (JA 1758-1770).

    Benjamin v. Veneman, No.

    8:05-cv-00175-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2006).

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decision making process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like