Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Crepeau v. Chao, 08-1057 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1057 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1057 PATRICIA CREPEAU, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, Department of Labor, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01308-CMH-TCB) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1057 PATRICIA CREPEAU, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, Department of Labor, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01308-CMH-TCB) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Crepeau, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine DeRoever Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patricia Crepeau appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on her religious discrimination and sexual harassment claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and her claim challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision upholding her fifteen-day employment suspension. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Crepeau v. Chao, No. 1:06-cv-01308-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 13, 2007; entered Nov. 14, 2007). 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