Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1726
EDWARD L. GILMORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, in his official capacity as Attorney General
of the United States,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00789-LMB-IDD)
Submitted:
Decided:
April 2, 2015
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Gilmore appeals from the district courts entry
of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in Defendants favor in
his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964,
as
amended,
42
U.S.C.
2000e2000e-17
(2012),
for
We affirm.
(4th
Cir.
Chaudhry
v.
Gallerizzo,
174
F.3d
394,
v.
Dungan,
45
F.3d
823,
827
(4th
Cir.
1995)
against
compensation,
terms,
any
individual
conditions,
or
with
respect
privileges
of
to
his
employment,
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).
Where,
evidence
as
here,
there
is
no
of
intentional
Green,
framework
411
the
U.S.
plaintiff
established
792,
802-07
bears
the
in
McDonnell
(1973).
initial
Douglas
Under
burden
this
of
St. Marys
To do so, a
of
fact,
discrimination
would
was
not
support
the
cause
finding
of
the
that
employment
of
506-07.
production,
not
of
proof
or
unlawful
action.
This is a
persuasion.
Id.
at
the
defendant
meets
his
production
burden,
then
the
Id. at 511.
of
circumstantial
discrimination.
credence
evidence
or
by
offering
sufficiently
other
forms
probative
of
of
Ultimately, however,
Id.
On
appeal,
Gilmore
asserts
that,
based
on
the
evidence
and
his
lack
of
supervisory
the
parties
briefs,
we
experience,
were
reject
Gilmores
assertions
as
He thus
in
excluding
litigation
at
trial
relative
to
the
admission
rulings
of
resulting
testimony
from
the
In determining whether an
not
suggested
that
Defendant
was
not
complying
Gilmore
with
the
The district
jury
was
information.
not
considering
irrelevant
and
confusing
(4th Cir. 2008) (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion
in
excluding
omitted
evidence
portions
that
were
with
contentions
are
we
oral
affirm
the
argument
adequately
district
because
presented
in
courts
judgment.
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED