Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0292-02.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

Robert ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ITT INDUSTRIES CORPORATION; Michael D.; Robert K., Defendants-Appellees, and ITT Federal Services Corporation, Defendant.
    No. 00-2496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 30, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 20, 2001.
    
      S. Neil Stout, Flax & Stout, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen William Robinson, Dana T. Buckman, McGuire-woods, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Robert Anderson filed a complaint alleging employment discrimination in his termination as a project manager for ITT Industries Corporation. The district court conducted a hearing and granted summary judgment in Appellees’ favor for the reasons stated from the bench. Anderson appeals from the court’s order. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, and the district court’s statements from the bench. The court properly found that, even if Anderson could make a prima facie showing of discriminatory termination, Appellees showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action and that Anderson failed to show that the reasons were pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 137-39, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court as stated at the hearing on October 20, 2000. Anderson v. ITT Industries Corp., No. CA-99-818-A (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 20, 2000 & entered Oct. 23, 2000). 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.