Court Opinion

ID: 1001681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:59:10.159787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:58.683070
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JUDE L. JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee,                                                 No. 99-2681

and

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-99-424-AMD)

Submitted: May 16, 2000

Decided: May 26, 2000

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jude L. James, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ross Niccolini, MCGUIRE,
WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTH, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jude L. James filed this action in district court, alleging discrimina-
tion on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994). James, who
was born in Guyana, is an employee of the International Paper Com-
pany (International). In 1998, he applied for an opening as a schedule
clerk working from 12 AM to 8 AM. The position required a self-
directed and highly motivated individual, as the schedule clerk
worked nights with no direct supervision.

Francis Bowles was responsible for filling the vacancy. He depu-
tized Reggie Collier to pre-screen applicants. However, Bowles spoke
directly to James's supervisor, who told him that James was not a "go
getter," but did just what was necessary to get by on the job. Bowles
stated in his deposition that, based on this statement, he decided not
to call James for a second interview. After this decision was made,
according to another employee, Collier stated that while James might
be qualified for the job, "[I can't] understand a damn thing he says."
There is no evidence that Bowles was aware of the statement or ever
said anything to suggest that he possessed a similar attitude. However,
based on Collier's statement, James asserts that the company's deci-
sion not to promote him was based on discrimination because of his
national origin. International denies the allegation.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Higgins v.
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in a failure-to pro-
mote claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) he was a member of a protected
class; (2) he applied for an open position; (3) he was qualified for the
position; and (4) he was denied promotion under circumstances which
created an inference of unlawful discrimination. The district court
held here that James was not qualified for the position, as he was not

                    2
highly motivated. Even if we assume that he was qualified, Interna-
tional has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its fail-
ure to promote him, in that Bowles did not receive a positive
recommendation from James's supervisor. There is no evidence that
this reason was pretextual. See Gillins v. Berkeley Elec. Coop., Inc.,
148 F.3d 413, 415-16 (4th Cir. 1998).

We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judg-
ment. 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3