Chambliss v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

D.C. Circuit

Chambliss v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

262 F. App'x 282

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 2007

DocketNo. 07-7044

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 F. App'x 282 (Chambliss v. National Railroad Passenger 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

Chambliss v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 262 F. App'x 282 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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 filed February 20, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the proffered reasons for the decision to terminate him were “ ‘false, and that discrimination [or retaliation] was the real reason.’ ” Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 186 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993)). In addition, to the extent appellant raised a hostile work environment claim, he has failed to show he was subjected to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was so severe or pervasive it altered his conditions of employment and created an abusive working environment. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Sens., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998); Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 366 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Additionally, the district court correctly held that appellant’s assault and battery claim was time-barred, see D.C.Code § 12-301(4); appellant failed to satisfy the elements of intentional interference with contract, see Casco Marina Dev., L.L.C. v. District of Columbia, 834 A.2d 77, 83 (D.C.2003); and appellant did not present the “proof of extreme or outrageous conduct” necessary to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 505-06 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. R. 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 filed February 20, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the proffered reasons for the decision to terminate him were “ ‘false, and that discrimination [or retaliation] was the real reason.’ ” Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 186 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993)). In addition, to the extent appellant raised a hostile work environment claim, he has failed to show he was subjected to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was so severe or pervasive it altered his conditions of employment and created an abusive working environment. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Sens., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998); Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 366 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Additionally, the district court correctly held that appellant’s assault and battery claim was time-barred, see D.C.Code § 12-301(4); appellant failed to satisfy the elements of intentional interference with contract, see Casco Marina Dev., L.L.C. v. District of Columbia, 834 A.2d 77, 83 (D.C.2003); and appellant did not present the “proof of extreme or outrageous conduct” necessary to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 505-06 (D.C.Cir.2007).

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. R. 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F. App'x 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambliss-v-national-railroad-passenger-corp-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack