Denise Shipman v. UPS
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00589-F. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999409713]. [13-2501]
Appeal: 13-2501
Doc: 21
Filed: 08/05/2014
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2501
DENISE SHIPMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cv-00589-F)
Submitted:
June 30, 2014
Decided:
August 5, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra J. Polin, LAW OFFICE OF SANDRA J. POLIN, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Charles A. Gartland, II, ALSTON &
BIRD, LLP, Washington, DC; Molly M. Jones, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP,
Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2501
Doc: 21
Filed: 08/05/2014
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Denise
Shipman
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
granting summary judgment to her former employer, the United
Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), on her claims of race, gender, and
age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(2012), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2012).
The district
court also granted summary judgment to UPS on Shipman’s claims
that
UPS
retaliated
environment.
against
her
and
fostered
a
hostile
work
We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment.
2011).
genuine
Summary
dispute
Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir.
judgment
as
to
is
any
appropriate
material
where
fact
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
56(a).
and
“there
the
is
no
movant
is
Fed. R. Civ. P.
“At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is
a genuine dispute as to those facts.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A district
court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence
presented.
(1986).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice,
2
Appeal: 13-2501
nor
Doc: 21
does
a
Filed: 08/05/2014
mere
scintilla
nonmoving party’s] case.”
312
F.3d
645,
649
Pg: 3 of 5
of
evidence
in
support
of
[the
Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,
(4th
Cir.
2002)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
First,
determination
Shipman
that
she
contests
failed
to
the
district
exhaust
her
court’s
administrative
remedies with respect to her claims of retaliation and hostile
work environment.
However, because Shipman’s charge filed with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) described
only
a
single
act
of
age,
race,
and
sex
discrimination,
conclude that the district court was correct.
Calvert
Group,
Ltd.,
551
F.3d
297,
300-01
we
See Jones v.
(4th
Cir.
2009);
Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 508-09 (4th Cir. 2005).
Also without merit is Shipman’s suggestion that the
district court erred in finding her claims of discriminatory
treatment untimely to the extent they were based on disciplinary
terminations
Shipman’s
misplaced
three
Shipman
reliance
because
discrete
experienced
on
her
acts
the
March
continuing
disparate
of
in
August
violation
treatment
allegedly
and
claims
discriminatory
2011.
theory
is
depended
on
discipline.
Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 219-20 (4th Cir.
2007); see also Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101, 113-14 (2002).
3
Appeal: 13-2501
Doc: 21
Filed: 08/05/2014
Pg: 4 of 5
Finally, we reject Shipman’s contention that she was
entitled
to
proceed
to
trial
on
her
claim
that
discharge in January 2012 was discriminatory.
produced
no
motivated
direct
her
considered
final
her
evidence
that
termination,
claims
under
the
final
Because Shipman
discrimination
the
her
district
of
any
court
burden-shifting
type
properly
framework
established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,
802-05 (1973).
354
F.3d
Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc.,
277,
284-85
(4th
Cir.
2004)
(en
banc)
(discussing
framework); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 142-49 (2000); Mereish v. Walker, 359 F.3d 330,
334 (4th Cir. 2004).
Assuming here, as the district court did, that Shipman
established a prima facie case, we agree that the evidence was
insufficient
to
suggest
Shipman’s
January
pretext
2012
in
UPS’s
stated
reasons
discharge--namely
for
dishonesty,
falsification of records, and overall performance.
Shipman’s
vague recounting of her brief conversations with several coworkers did not adequately indicate that UPS had cited them for
immediately
terminable
misconduct
comparable
precipitating Shipman’s final discharge.
N.
Am.,
Inc.,
252
F.3d
307,
314-15
&
to
that
See Hill v. Michelin
n.3
(4th
Cir.
2001).
Moreover, standing alone, the fact that a grievance panel later
concluded
that
dishonesty
should
4
not
have
been
a
basis
for
Appeal: 13-2501
Doc: 21
Filed: 08/05/2014
Pg: 5 of 5
Shipman’s discharge does not suggest pretext.
See DeJarnette v.
Corning Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 298-99 (4th Cir. 1998).
Similarly,
Shipman’s brief allusion to evidence that she, at times, had
disputes with or was mistreated by her various supervisors is
unavailing, as such incidents are not generally probative of
discrimination.
See Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 788-89
(4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?