Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01226/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01226-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1226

ADRIENNE WALKER-PITTMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MARYLAND TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00202-CCB)

Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Morris, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian 

E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Jennifer L. Katz, Eric 

S. Hartwig, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1226 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrienne Walker-Pittman appeals the district court’s order 

granting the Maryland Department of Transportation’s and the 

Maryland Transportation Administration’s motion to dismiss 

Walker-Pittman’s retaliation and race and gender discrimination 

claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2008 & 

Supp. 2016); retaliation and age discrimination claims, brought 

pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); 

retaliation and disability discrimination claims, brought 

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12101-12213 (2012), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); 

and unlawful employment practices claims, brought pursuant to 

the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State 

Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. See Walker-Pittman v. Md. Dep’t of 

Transp., No. 1:14-cv-00202-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-1226 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-1226 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3