Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Fourth Circuit

Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

47 F. App'x 255

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2002

Docket02-1066

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 F. App'x 255 (Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance) 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

Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 47 F. App'x 255 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Kim A. Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. (“Nationwide”) in this employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). On appeal, Thomas maintains that the district court erred in finding that she failed to make out a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination and that, in any event, she could not show that Nationwide’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the challenged actions were pretextual.

This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Objective, Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 590-91 (4th Cir.1999). 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). Once the moving party discharges its burden by showing there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In light of the arguments raised on appeal, we have reviewed the transcript of the court’s hearing on the motion for summary judgment and the other materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. CA-00-3335-PJM (D.Md. Dec. 12, 2001) (granting Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated from the bench). (J.A. at 916-33). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *256 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.

Kim A. Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. (“Nationwide”) in this employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). On appeal, Thomas maintains that the district court erred in finding that she failed to make out a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination and that, in any event, she could not show that Nationwide’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the challenged actions were pretextual.

This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Objective, Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 590-91 (4th Cir.1999). 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). Once the moving party discharges its burden by showing there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In light of the arguments raised on appeal, we have reviewed the transcript of the court’s hearing on the motion for summary judgment and the other materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. CA-00-3335-PJM (D.Md. Dec. 12, 2001) (granting Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated from the bench). (J.A. at 916-33). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *256 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 F. App'x 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack