Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Perryman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart in a racial discrimination case brought by Lamonica Perryman under Title VII. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the lower court that Perryman failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination as required by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-1828

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart in a racial discrimination case brought by Lamonica Perryman under Title VII. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the lower court that Perryman failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination as required by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Perryman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart in a racial discrimination case brought by Lamonica Perryman under Title VII. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the lower court that Perryman failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination as required by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 00-1828

    LAMONICA PERRYMAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-99-1417-2)

    Submitted:

    September 21, 2000

    Decided:

    September 27, 2000

    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Lamonica Perryman, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III,
    Daryl Eugene Webb, Jr., Richard Franklin Hawkins, MAYS & VALENTINE,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lamonica Perryman appeals the magistrate judges order granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart and dismissing this civil
    rights action alleging racial discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII.

    See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) (1994).

    We have

    reviewed the record and the magistrate judges order and find no
    reversible error.

    The magistrate judge correctly determined that

    Perryman failed to establish the elements of a prima facie case of


    employment discrimination.
    411 U.S. 792, 793 (1973).

    See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,


    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 decisional
    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like