Case Name: Helen DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Maryland Transit Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-11
Citations: 672 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 15-1158
Parties: Helen DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Maryland Transit Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
Helen DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Maryland Transit Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1158
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2016
Decided: January 11, 2017
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 Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Helen Dale appeals the district court's order granting the Maryland Department of Transportation's and the Maryland Transportation Administration's motion to dismiss Dale's 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); age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 to 684 (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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dale v. Md. Dep't of Transp., No. 1:13-cv-00191-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED