Brenda Williams v. Altec Industries, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00356-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998794437]. Mailed to: Williams. [11-1961]

Appeal: 11-1961

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/23/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1961

BRENDA L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00356-BO)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 23, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Elizabeth Shea,
CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1961

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/23/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Brenda L. Williams appeals the district court’s order
granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this
employment discrimination action.
With

respect

to

We affirm.

Williams’

claim

of

race

and

sex

discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as

amended,

her

claim

under

the

Equal

Pay

Act,

29

U.S.C.

§ 206(d)(1) (2006), her claim of a hostile work environment, and
her

state

law

distress,
judgment

we
de

review

for
the

negligent
district

novo,

viewing

therefrom

inferences
nonmoving

claim

in

party.

Bonds

the
the

v.

infliction
court’s

facts
light

Leavitt,

grant

and

emotional
of

drawing

most
629

of

reasonable

favorable
F.3d

Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 398 (2011).

369,

summary

to

the

380

(4th

We have reviewed

the record with this standard in mind and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district

court.

5:10-cv-00356-BO

Williams

v.

Altec

Industries,

Inc.,

No.

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2011).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2