Caldwell v. Duke Energy Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Caldwell v. Duke Energy Corp.

41 F. App'x 674

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2002

Docket02-1106

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 F. App'x 674 (Caldwell v. Duke Energy Corp.) 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

Caldwell v. Duke Energy Corp., 41 F. App'x 674 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Loraine B. Caldwell appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Duke Energy Corporation and dismissing her employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp.2001). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that Caldwell established a prima facie case of employment discrimination, O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 310-11, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.1991), we agree with the district court that Caldwell failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Duke Energy Corporation proffered to support its decision to terminate her. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir.1991). Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that in violation of her employer’s policies, Caldwell, a customer service specialist, intentionally disconnected calls from customers and failed to properly designate a telephone call concerning a fire as a priority call. Caldwell’s self-serving, unsubstantiated statements in opposition to the employer’s evidence in this regard is insufficient to stave off summary judgment. Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 455 (4th Cir.1989). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessem *675 er, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Duke Energy Corporation. 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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Loraine B. Caldwell appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Duke Energy Corporation and dismissing her employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp.2001). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that Caldwell established a prima facie case of employment discrimination, O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 310-11, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.1991), we agree with the district court that Caldwell failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Duke Energy Corporation proffered to support its decision to terminate her. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir.1991). Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that in violation of her employer’s policies, Caldwell, a customer service specialist, intentionally disconnected calls from customers and failed to properly designate a telephone call concerning a fire as a priority call. Caldwell’s self-serving, unsubstantiated statements in opposition to the employer’s evidence in this regard is insufficient to stave off summary judgment. Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 455 (4th Cir.1989). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessem *675 er, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Duke Energy Corporation. 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)

41 F. App'x 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-duke-energy-corp-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack