Court Opinion

ID: 1000927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:48:03.568569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:17.309254
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CHARLOTTE AHEART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SODEXHO MARRIOTT SERVICES,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee,                                                    No. 99-1033

and

MARRIOTT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INCORPORATED; MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-97-3685-PJM)

Submitted: January 31, 2000

Decided: February 22, 2000

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eric Steele, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Todd J. Horn, Robin B.
Bowerfind, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, L.L.P., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Charlotte D. Aheart appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc., on
her claim for sexual harassment under Title VII and denying her
motion to amend her complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to Aheart, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986), we find that the district court properly found
that Marriott proved both elements of its affirmative defense to vicari-
ous liability established by Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S.
775 (1998), and Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellereth, 524 U.S. 742
(1998). Aheart also appeals from the denial of her motion to amend
her complaint to add a claim under the Montgomery County Human
Relations Act. In light of the dismissal of Aheart's federal claim, we
find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of her motion
to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Therefore, we affirm the order awarding summary judgment to
Marriott and denying Aheart's motion to amend her complaint. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2