UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ARETHA DAVIS; DENISE VEREEN; 

LINDA THOMPKINS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,  No. 00-2517

v.

ANVIL KNITWEAR, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. 

ARETHA DAVIS; DENISE VEREEN; 

LINDA THOMPKINS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,  No. 00-2552

v.

ANVIL KNITWEAR, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-99-1498-4-24)

Submitted: September 28, 2001

Decided: October 12, 2001

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

No. 00-2517 affirmed and No. 00-2552 dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Saunders M. Bridges, Jr.,

BRIDGES, ORR & ERVIN, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

The Appellants, Aretha Davis, Denise Vereen, and Linda Thompkins, are former employees of the Appellee, Anvil Knitwear, Inc.

("Anvil"). The Appellants were terminated from their positions as

garment inspectors for gross negligence after Anvil determined they

had approved defective garments for shipment to a customer, which

subsequently rejected the shipment and closed its account with Anvil.

The Appellants brought this action in the Circuit Court for Marion

County, South Carolina, alleging defamation, wrongful termination in

breach of an employment contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Anvil removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction and moved for summary

judgment. The Appellants abandoned their defamation claim and

opposed Anvil’s motion for summary judgment. Although the district

court rejected Anvil’s argument that the Appellants were at-will

employees, it granted Anvil’s motion for summary judgment on alternate grounds. Both parties appeal. 

This Court reviews 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322-23 (1986). This Court views the evidence in the light most

2 DAVIS v. ANVIL KNITWEAR, INC.
favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 

On appeal, the Appellants assert the district court erred in finding

their actions were grossly negligent, subjecting them to termination

under Anvil’s employment handbook even if they were not at-will

employees. Anvil asserts the district court properly determined the

Appellants’ actions were grossly negligent, but argues its employment

handbook and oral statements did not alter the Appellants’ at-will

employment status. Because we find no error in the district court’s

determination that the Appellants’ actions constituted gross negligence, see Clyburn v. Sumter County Sch. Dist. 17, 451 S.E.2d 885,

887-88 (S.C. 1994), we need not decide whether the court properly

found Appellants were not at-will employees. We therefore affirm the

district court’s order granting Anvil summary judgment and dismiss

Anvil’s cross-appeal as moot. 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 in the decisional process. 

No. 00-2517 - AFFIRMED

No. 00-2552 - DISMISSED

DAVIS v. ANVIL KNITWEAR, INC. 3