Johnson v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1559
JEFFREY E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
(MWAA),
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JAMES WILDING, CEO; ELMER HUNT TIPPETT, JR.,
Vice President for Public Safety; ARL
WILLIAMS, Vice President for Human Resources;
LEO J. ROSSITER, Chief of Police; MICHAEL
CZLONKA, Deputy Police Chief support Services
Bureau,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-01-1614-A)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: November 27, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Kletzkin, Mark David
Crawford, FRIEDLANDER, MISLER, SLOAN, KLETZKIN & OCHSMAN, P.L.L.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey E. Johnson filed a complaint alleging employment
discrimination in his termination as a police planner for the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) and in MWAA’s
failure to hire him for other positions. The district court
conducted a hearing and granted summary judgment in favor of MWAA
for the reasons stated from the bench. Johnson appeals. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s statements from the
bench. The court properly found that, even if Johnson could make
a prima facie showing of discriminatory treatment, MWAA showed
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse employment
actions and that Johnson failed to show that the reasons were
pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.
133, 137-39 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court as stated at the hearing on January 4, 2002. See
Johnson v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, No. CA-01-
1614-A (E.D. Va. filed April 19, 2002 & entered April 24, 2002).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3