Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07035/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tamika Edmonds
Appellant
Engility Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15-7035 September Term, 2015

FILED ON: JANUARY 21, 2016

TAMIKA EDMONDS,

APPELLANT

v.

ENGILITY CORPORATION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:13-cv-00893)

Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit 

Judges.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s 

order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment was presented to the court and 

briefed and argued by counsel. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and 

has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It 

is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the District Court be 

affirmed for the reasons stated by the District Court. See Edmonds v. Engility Corp., 82 

F. Supp. 3d 337 (D.D.C. 2015). We agree with the District Court that Edmonds has not 

produced sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable inference that Engility’s explanation 

for Edmonds’s termination—that the company replaced Edmonds’s payroll position with 

an accountant position to address problems with a new accounting system—was pretext 

for discrimination, retaliation, or unlawful interference with Edmonds’s right to maternity 

leave. While Edmonds raised several arguments that the District Court did not expressly 

address, these arguments are immaterial because they do not, even taken as a whole and 

combined with the other evidence invoked by Edmonds, give rise to a reasonable 

inference of pretext.

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this court, this disposition will not be published. The 

Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the 

USCA Case #15-7035 Document #1594812 Filed: 01/21/2016 Page 1 of 2
No. 15-7035

Page 2

disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See 

FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-7035 Document #1594812 Filed: 01/21/2016 Page 2 of 2