Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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:
Decided:
August 5, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Denise
Shipman
appeals
the
district
courts
order
The district
UPS
retaliated
environment.
against
her
and
fostered
hostile
work
We affirm.
Summary
dispute
to
is
any
appropriate
material
where
fact
and
there
the
is
no
movant
is
Fed. R. Civ. P.
A district
nor
does
mere
scintilla
F.3d
645,
649
of
evidence
in
support
of
[the
(4th
Cir.
2002)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
First,
determination
Shipman
that
she
contests
failed
to
the
district
exhaust
her
courts
administrative
single
act
of
age,
race,
and
sex
discrimination,
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 Shipmans suggestion that the
district court erred in finding her claims of discriminatory
treatment untimely to the extent they were based on disciplinary
terminations
Shipmans
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 Natl R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101, 113-14 (2002).
to
proceed
to
trial
on
her
claim
that
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
F.3d
277,
284-85
(4th
Cir.
2004)
(en
banc)
(discussing
to
suggest
Shipmans
January
pretext
2012
in
UPSs
stated
reasons
discharge--namely
for
dishonesty,
Shipmans
vague recounting of her brief conversations with several coworkers did not adequately indicate that UPS had cited them for
immediately
terminable
misconduct
comparable
Am.,
Inc.,
252
F.3d
307,
314-15
&
to
that
(4th
Cir.
2001).
that
dishonesty
should
4
not
have
been
basis
for
See DeJarnette v.
Similarly,
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED