Simmons v. Coastal Contractors

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2655
EARL SIMMONS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COASTAL CONTRACTORS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-94-2486-9-19)
Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: March 5, 1996
Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Hugh Infinger, DUKES,
WILLIAMS, INFINGER & MEEKS, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment for the Defendant on his Title VII claim alleging
racial discrimination. Specifically, Appellant alleged that his
supervisor called him "Shiny," and questioned his ability to per-
form construction work. Appellant conceded that he had never heard
the word "Shiny" used to mean any kind of insult, but assumed that
it was a racial slur. He therefore felt compelled to quit. We find
that the facts of this case are insufficient to create an abusive
work environment or make conditions so intolerable that a reason-
able person would feel compelled to resign. Accordingly we find
that Appellant is unable to prevail on either a hostile racial work
environment or constructive discharge claim. See Meritor Sav. Bank,
F.S.B. v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986) (providing standard for
hostile sexual work environment claim); see also Amirmokri v.
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 60 F.3d 1126, 1132 (4th Cir. 1995)
(providing standard for constructive discharge claim). We therefore
affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the
Defendant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2