Amiri v. Sheraton Operating Corp.

D.C. Circuit

Amiri v. Sheraton Operating Corp.

186 F. App'x 6

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2006

DocketNo. 05-7130

StatusPublished

This text of 186 F. App'x 6 (Amiri v. Sheraton Operating Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amiri v. Sheraton Operating Corp., 186 F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered on August 22, 2005, granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the proffered reasons for appellee’s action were pretextual, or that a reasonable trier of fact could infer intentional discrimination based on the evidence. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139,1151 (D.C.Cir.2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered on August 22, 2005, granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the proffered reasons for appellee’s action were pretextual, or that a reasonable trier of fact could infer intentional discrimination based on the evidence. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139,1151 (D.C.Cir.2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 F. App'x 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amiri-v-sheraton-operating-corp-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack