Greene v. Burlington Indust ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-1553
    TOMMY M. GREENE; JOYCE M. LYNCH; WALLACE P.
    CLAX; PAULA D. WHITE; ANTHONY YELVERTON;
    GREGORY CHERRY; RONALD JOHNSON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-95-42-5-H2)
    Argued:   January 30, 1997             Decided:     February 26, 1997
    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Randy Meares, BYRD & MEARES, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellants. Max Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY
    & LEONARD, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON
    BRIEF: Jennifer K. Van Zant, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY &
    LEONARD, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Seven employees sued Burlington Industries, Inc. under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1981
    , alleging racial discrimination in the promotion and
    salaries of employees at its Wake County, North Carolina, textile
    plant. Burlington Industries filed a motion for summary judgment,
    maintaining that all promotions at the plant were based on employee
    qualifications and that the plaintiffs, in particular, were not
    more aggressively promoted because of comparative merit criteria.
    Burlington Industries also introduced a study of the statistical
    rates of its promotions showing no statistical discrepancy in the
    promotion rates among the races.     Finding that the plaintiffs
    failed to provide any evidence that Burlington Industries' articu-
    lated reasons for promotions were pretextual, the district court
    entered summary judgment in favor of Burlington Industries.
    On appeal, the appellants submitted a two-page argument
    stating that they disagree with the district court and concluding
    summarily that "the record is replete with evidence supporting
    appellants' position that appellee consistently and frequently
    practiced discrimination in hiring and promotion."     We have re-
    viewed the record carefully, however, and cannot find that evi-
    dence. Accordingly, for the reasons given by the district court in
    its thorough opinion, see Greene, et al. v. Burlington Industries,
    Inc., No. 5:95-CV-42-H2 (E.D.N.C., March 21, 1996), we affirm.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1553

Filed Date: 2/26/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014