Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01086/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DAP, Incorporated
Appellee
Faye Robin Toulan
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1086

FAYE ROBIN TOULAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAP, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

(1:05-cv-02254-CCB)

Submitted: January 28, 2008 Decided: March 26, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, Jason I. Weisbrot, Jacob Statman,

SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Douglas M. Topolski, Elena D. Marcuss, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1086 Doc: 78 Filed: 03/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*We deny Toulan’s Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) request to defer

action on her appeal pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of

CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 128 S. Ct. 30 (2007), and deny DAP’s

outstanding request for costs associated with the filing of a

supplemental appendix.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Faye Robin Toulan appeals the district court’s order

granting DAP, Incorporated’s (“DAP”) summary judgment motion on her

retaliation and gender and national origin (American)

discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17

(2000), and her salary discrimination claim, brought pursuant to

the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2000). We have reviewed the

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

the reasons stated by the district court. See Toulan v. DAP, Inc.,

No. 1:05-cv-02254-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 17, 2007).*

 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

Appeal: 07-1086 Doc: 78 Filed: 03/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 2