Amirmokri v. Department of Energy

Fourth Circuit

Amirmokri v. Department of Energy

388 F. App'x 255

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 2010

Docket09-1692

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 388 F. App'x 255 (Amirmokri v. Department of Energy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amirmokri v. Department of Energy, 388 F. App'x 255 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Homi N. Amirmokri, a male of Iranian origin, appeals from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his action alleging that his employer, the Department of Energy, discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010), allegedly based upon his race and prior Equal Employment Opportunity and whistleblowing activity. Specifically, Amirmokri alleges on appeal that he was discriminated and retaliated against relative to his forced removal, paid administrative leave, and notice of reprimand after a verbal altercation with a co-worker. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). Summary judgment will be granted unless “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We conclude that the district court *256 correctly determined that Amirmokri failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that he did not demonstrate that the employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the disciplinary action was a pretext for national origin discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir.2004); King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 150-51 (4th Cir.2003).

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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Homi N. Amirmokri, a male of Iranian origin, appeals from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his action alleging that his employer, the Department of Energy, discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010), allegedly based upon his race and prior Equal Employment Opportunity and whistleblowing activity. Specifically, Amirmokri alleges on appeal that he was discriminated and retaliated against relative to his forced removal, paid administrative leave, and notice of reprimand after a verbal altercation with a co-worker. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). Summary judgment will be granted unless “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We conclude that the district court *256 correctly determined that Amirmokri failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that he did not demonstrate that the employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the disciplinary action was a pretext for national origin discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375 (4th Cir.2004); King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 150-51 (4th Cir.2003).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F. App'x 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amirmokri-v-department-of-energy-ca4-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack