Case ID: f-appx_102/html/0812-01.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

Gay Mercer HAYSLETT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 03-2029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 30, 2004.
    Decided July 22, 2004.
    Marni E. Byrum, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.
    James E. Fagan, III, Office of the County Attorney, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Gay Mercer Hayslett, an African-American female, filed suit against her employer, the Arlington County Police Department (“Employer”), alleging that Employer violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), by (1) discriminating against her based on her race in its decisions to promote and train, and (2) retaliating against her for filing discrimination claims. The court entered summary judgment against Hayslett and dismissed the action. Hayslett now appeals that order. We affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In light of this standard, we have carefully reviewed the formal briefs and materials submitted by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting Employer’s motion for summary judgment. 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