UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS T. MURRAY; BETTY

ROADCAP; DUANE MCINTYRE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DILLARD PAPER COMPANY;

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY;

XPED-X, and its subsidiaries, a No. 99-2133

New York Corporation,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

ZELLERBACH; CROWN CORPORATION;

FORT JAMES PAPER COMPANY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-98-585-3)

Argued: September 28, 2000

Decided: October 25, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

Frederick P. STAMP, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the

Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Stephine M. Wells-Moragne, OUT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Lake Wylie, South Carolina, for Appellants.

James LeRoy Banks, Jr., MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE &

BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:

E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., William H. Baxter, MCGUIRE, WOODS,

BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Thomas Murray, Duane McIntyre, and Betty Roadcap, individuals

who worked as employees of Dillard Paper Company, in Richmond,

Virginia, commenced this action alleging employment discrimination

and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). The district court entered summary judgment in defendants’ favor, and this appeal followed. 

Murray, a 56-year-old African American, was a truck driver with

Dillard Paper who had applied unsuccessfully for various sales positions within the company during 1997. He contends that he was not

given a sales position because of his race, sex, and age. He also contends that he was delayed in having been given full-time employment

with the company because of his age; that the company retaliated

against him because he filed an EEOC charge and complained that

African Americans were given less desirable jobs; that the company

failed to accommodate him after he complained of tendinitis; and that

he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race.

Dillard Paper contends that it based its employment decisions with

respect to Murray on merit and that race, sex, and age played no part

in its decisions. 

2 MURRAY v. DILLARD PAPER CO.
McIntyre, a 35-year-old African American whom Dillard Paper

fired because he falsified his time record, contends that he was fired

because of his race. He also alleges that he was subjected to a hostile

work environment based on his race. 

Roadcap, a 56-year-old white woman, contends that, when she protested the elimination of a position at Dillard Paper that had been

filled by an African American, the company treated her adversely by

yelling at her, monitoring her whereabouts, leaving her out of meetings, criticizing her, giving her a poor performance evaluation, and

requiring her to report to a newly-hired manager. She alleges that the

company discriminated against her and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, "and/or" the ADA. 

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and considered

appellants’ arguments made both in their briefs and at oral argument.

For the reasons given by the district court in its comprehensive memorandum opinion, see Murray, et al. v. Dillard Paper Co., et al., Civil

Action No. 3:98CV585 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 1999), we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

MURRAY v. DILLARD PAPER CO. 3