Vaughan v. Amtrak

D.C. Circuit

Vaughan v. Amtrak

516 F. App'x 6

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 2013

DocketNo. 12-7105

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 516 F. App'x 6 (Vaughan v. Amtrak) 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

Vaughan v. Amtrak, 516 F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

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 September 21, 2012, be affirmed. Appellee has offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the non-selection of appellant. Appellant has failed to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the asserted reason was not the actual reason and that the appellee intentionally discriminated against him. See Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 678 (D.C.Cir.2009); Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.Cir.2008); see also Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809, 816 (D.C.Cir.2010) (plaintiffs own speculations and allegations are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding an employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. Rule 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 September 21, 2012, be affirmed. Appellee has offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the non-selection of appellant. Appellant has failed to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the asserted reason was not the actual reason and that the appellee intentionally discriminated against him. See Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 678 (D.C.Cir.2009); Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C.Cir.2008); see also Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809, 816 (D.C.Cir.2010) (plaintiffs own speculations and allegations are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding an employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions).

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. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F. App'x 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-amtrak-cadc-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack