Greene v. Burlington Indust

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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