Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 147 views

    Melvin Crawley v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case between Melvin Crawley and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern, finding that Crawley did not provide sufficient evidence that Norfolk Southern discriminated against him based on his race when disciplining him related to how he handled an employee injury. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the record did not demonstrate Norfolk Southern acted due to Crawley's race.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Melvin Crawley v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    147 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Melvin Crawley and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern, finding that Crawley did not provide sufficient evidence that Norfolk Southern discriminated against him based on his race when disciplining him related to how he handled an employee injury. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the record did not demonstrate Norfolk Southern acted due to Crawley's race.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1770

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Melvin Crawley and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern, finding that Crawley did not provide sufficient evidence that Norfolk Southern discriminated against him based on his race when disciplining him related to how he handled an employee injury. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the record did not demonstrate Norfolk Southern acted due to Crawley's race.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    147 views4 pages

    Melvin Crawley v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case between Melvin Crawley and Norfolk Southern Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern, finding that Crawley did not provide sufficient evidence that Norfolk Southern discriminated against him based on his race when disciplining him related to how he handled an employee injury. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the record did not demonstrate Norfolk Southern acted due to Crawley's race.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1770

    MELVIN L. CRAWLEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:08-cv-00267-JCT)

    Argued:

    May 16, 2012

    Decided:

    June 27, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and Robert J.


    CONRAD, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Western
    District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    ARGUED:
    Lachlan William Smith, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
    PANTAZIS, PC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. James Stanton
    Whitehead, SIDLEY & AUSTIN, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for
    Appellee.
    ON BRIEF:
    Timothy Earl Cupp, CUPP & CUPP, PC,
    Harrisonburg, Virginia; Robert F. Childs, Jr., WIGGINS, CHILDS,
    QUINN & PANTAZIS, PC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant.
    William B. Poff, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZELGROVE, PLC, Roanoke,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Melvin

    Crawley,

    an

    Southern

    Corporation,

    employer,

    alleging

    African-American
    commenced

    discrimination

    this
    and

    executive
    action

    at

    Norfolk

    against

    retaliation

    under

    his
    Title

    VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.


    and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1981.
    Crawleys claims arise from Norfolk Southerns disciplining him
    for the manner in which he handled a Norfolk Southern employees
    work-related injury.
    On

    Norfolk

    district

    court

    Southerns
    conducted

    motion

    for

    hearing,

    summary

    after

    which

    judgment,
    it

    the

    issued

    thorough opinion, reviewing the record and making conclusions of


    law.

    At

    bottom,

    the

    court

    concluded

    that

    Crawley

    had

    not

    demonstrated evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could


    find that Norfolk Southern discriminated against him.

    From the

    district courts judgment, dated June 20, 2011, Crawley filed


    this appeal.
    After considering Crawleys arguments, as contained in his
    briefs

    and

    as

    presented

    at

    oral

    argument,

    and

    reviewing

    the

    record de novo, taking the facts and reasonable inferences to be


    drawn from them in the light most favorable to him, see Emmett
    v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 292, 297 (4th Cir. 2008), we affirm for the
    reasons given by the district court.

    See Crawley v. Norfolk

    Southern Corp., Civil Action No. 7:08-cv-00267, 2011 WL 2469875


    3

    (W.D. Va. June 20, 2011).

    While it is doubtful that Crawley

    established a prima facie case for discriminatory discipline,


    see Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d 507, 511 (4th Cir.
    1993), we agree with the district court that the record evidence
    failed to demonstrate that Norfolk Southern acted by reason of
    Crawleys

    race.

    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm

    the

    judgment

    of

    the

    district court.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like