Court Opinion

ID: 9402041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 21:00:45.340732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.091008
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2333      Doc: 18         Filed: 06/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2333

        TERESA JONES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00636-RDA-IDD)

        Submitted: April 3, 2023                                          Decided: June 13, 2023

        Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Teresa Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Connor Deacon, Kara Mather Maciel, CONN
        MACIEL CAREY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2333         Doc: 18     Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Teresa Jones appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her

        former employer, Marriott International, on her discrimination claims raised under the Age

        Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

        district court. Jones v. Marriott Int’l, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00636-RDA-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct.

        29, 2021). 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

                                                    2