Court Opinion

ID: 992580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:54:13.25524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:13.941448
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHERANNE L. JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 96-2071
TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of the
Army,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-95-1537-A)

Submitted: June 10, 1997

Decided: July 9, 1997

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Leodis C. Matthews, MATTHEWS & KELSO, Frankfurt, Germany,
for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, James E.
Macklin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia; Major Thomas M. Ray, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sheranne Jenkins appeals from the district court's adverse determi-
nation and dismissal, following a bench trial, of her employment dis-
crimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985 &
Supp. 1996). Jenkins alleged age discrimination against her former
employer, the United States Army, based on a demotion and her ulti-
mate termination from employment. On appeal, she challenges the
district court's ultimate determination of non-discrimination, as well
as several of the court's evidentiary rulings. Our review of the record
and the district court's findings discloses that this appeal is without
merit.

The district court, after a full presentation of the evidence, found
that Jenkins failed to establish a prima facie case of employment dis-
crimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., ___
U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see
also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973);
Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). We
agree with the district court that, even assuming, arguendo, that Jen-
kins established a prima facie case of age discrimination, she failed
to rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons Defendant prof-
fered to support its decisions to demote and ultimately terminate her.
See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
254-56 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d
231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we cannot say that the dis-
trict court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous.
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).

As to the district court's evidentiary rulings, such rulings are enti-
tled to substantial deference and will not be reversed by this Court
absent a clear abuse of discretion. Sasaki v. Class, 92 F.3d 232, 241

                    2
(4th Cir. 1996). We find that Jenkins' claims of error in this case rela-
tive to the district court's striking of the testimony of two of Jenkins's
witnesses on grounds of relevance is without merit. Moreover, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion relative to evi-
dence regarding allegedly discriminatory statements made by Ms.
Mackey, Jenkins's former supervisor, given that Jenkins did not claim
discrimination at the hand of Ms. Mackey below.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3