Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lancaster v. Delta Airlines Inc, 04-1091 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1091 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1091 VICCI S. LANCASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DELTA AIR LINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-657-A) Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Swick, Em
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1091 VICCI S. LANCASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DELTA AIR LINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-657-A) Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Swick, Emily L. Mutterperl, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jonathan R. Mook, DIMURO, GINSBERG & MOOK, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vicci S. Lancaster, a 52-year old Caucasian female and former employee of Delta Air Lines, Inc., served as a Team Leader, responsible for supervising gate and ticket agents. Following a lengthy history of complaints, and several negative reviews from Delta management, Lancaster was suspended, and ultimately demoted. Lancaster filed the instant Title VII action against Delta, alleging that her suspension and demotion were motivated by discrimination on the basis of age, race, and gender, in violation of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 20003-17 (2000), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer