Helen Dale v. MD Dept. of Transportation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00191-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000001789].. [15-1158]

Appeal: 15-1158

Doc: 46

Filed: 01/11/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1158

HELEN DALE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATION,

OF

TRANSPORTATION,

MARYLAND

TRANSIT

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00191-ELH)

Submitted:

November 30, 2016

Decided:

January 11, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Morris, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian
E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Jennifer L. Katz, Eric
S. Hartwig, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1158

Doc: 46

Filed: 01/11/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Helen Dale appeals the district court’s order granting the
Maryland

Department

Transportation

of

Transportation’s

Administration’s

motion

to

and

the

dismiss

Maryland

Dale’s

race

and gender discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII
of

the

Civil

§§ 2000e

to

discrimination
Discrimination

Rights

Act

2000e-17

1964,

(West

claims,
in

of

as

2008

brought

Employment

amended,
&

Supp.

pursuant

Act

of

42

2016);

to

1967,

U.S.C.A.

the
as

age
Age

amended,

29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); and unlawful
employment practices claims, brought pursuant to the Maryland
Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014).
no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.

See Dale v. Md. Dep’t of Transp.,

No. 1:13-cv-00191-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2015).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2