Case ID: f-appx_9/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lois B. CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CASUAL CORNER GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and Claudio Delvecchio, President and CEO in his official capacity and in his personal capacity; Karen Rasmussen, In her official capacity and in her personal capacity, Defendants.
    No. 00-2209.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 17, 2001.
    Decided May 25, 2001.
    
      Lois B. Chandler, pro se.
    David C. Burton, Sean Michael Gibbons, Steven David Brown, Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Lois B. Chandler appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Casual Corner in her'employment discrimination action. Claims submitted to this court on appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment are subject to de novo review. See Mitchell v. Data General Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1313 (4th Cir .1993).

Chandler first claims that Casual Corner’s failure to promote her to the position of store manager was an adverse employment action. The district court, however, properly found no adverse action because it was undisputed that Chandler never applied for the position. See Shackelford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 190 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir.1999).

Chandler’s second cause of action alleged Casual Corner acted adversely in withholding quarterly bonuses. The employer asserted legitimate reasons in conformance with their written disciplinary policy for the actions it undertook, and Chandler offered no evidence that the actions taken were pretextual. See Taylor v. Virginia Union University, 193 F.3d 219, 230 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the district dourt. 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.