Long v. Peters

D.C. Circuit

Long v. Peters

219 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

DocketNo. 05-5281

StatusPublished

This text of 219 F. App'x 2 (Long v. Peters) 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

Long v. Peters, 219 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. Long claims that the Department of Transportation discriminated against her on the basis of her race in denying her a career ladder promotion. The Department submitted evidence that it did not [3]*3promote Long because she was not qualified for a promotion. J.A. 14-15. Long did not offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that the Department’s nondiscriminatory explanation was pretextual. Id. at 18. Therefore, the District Court properly granted the Department’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). Cf. Barnette v. Chertoff, 453 F.3d 513, 519 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 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 case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. Long claims that the Department of Transportation discriminated against her on the basis of her race in denying her a career ladder promotion. The Department submitted evidence that it did not [3]*3promote Long because she was not qualified for a promotion. J.A. 14-15. Long did not offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that the Department’s nondiscriminatory explanation was pretextual. Id. at 18. Therefore, the District Court properly granted the Department’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). Cf. Barnette v. Chertoff, 453 F.3d 513, 519 (D.C.Cir.2006).

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 rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-peters-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack