Hood v. Lockheed Martin Corp
Hood v. Lockheed Martin Corp
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NANCY HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; No. 00-1683 LOCKHEED MARTIN FEDERAL SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1525-A)
Submitted: November 9, 2000
Decided: November 30, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Nancy Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Mark Dare, REED, SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Falls Church, Virginia; Paul Gregory Joyce, REED, SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. 2 HOOD v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Nancy Hood appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging inter alia employment discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213(West 1995 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Hood failed to establish a prima facie case of dis- crimination on the basis of her alleged disability. See Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp.,
128 F.3d 191, 197(4th Cir. 1997); see also Baird v. Rose,
192 F.3d 462, 469-70 (4th Cir. 1999) (refining causa- tion element for ADA plaintiff). Hood also failed to establish a causal connection between her protected activities and her termination that would support a finding of illegal retaliation. See Williams v. Cer- beronics, Inc.,
871 F.2d 452, 457(4th Cir. 1989). Finally, Hood’s allegations fall far short of stating a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Russo v. White,
400 S.E.2d 160, 162(Va. 1991). Finding no error, we affirm the order of the district court. The pending motion to vacate this court’s order granting an extension of time in which to file a reply brief is denied as moot. 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AFFIRMED UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NANCY HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; No. 00-1683 LOCKHEED MARTIN FEDERAL SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1525-A)
Submitted: November 9, 2000
Decided: November 30, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Nancy Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Mark Dare, REED, SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Falls Church, Virginia; Paul Gregory Joyce, REED, SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. 2 HOOD v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Nancy Hood appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging inter alia employment discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213(West 1995 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Hood failed to establish a prima facie case of dis- crimination on the basis of her alleged disability. See Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp.,
128 F.3d 191, 197(4th Cir. 1997); see also Baird v. Rose,
192 F.3d 462, 469-70 (4th Cir. 1999) (refining causa- tion element for ADA plaintiff). Hood also failed to establish a causal connection between her protected activities and her termination that would support a finding of illegal retaliation. See Williams v. Cer- beronics, Inc.,
871 F.2d 452, 457(4th Cir. 1989). Finally, Hood’s allegations fall far short of stating a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Russo v. White,
400 S.E.2d 160, 162(Va. 1991). Finding no error, we affirm the order of the district court. The pending motion to vacate this court’s order granting an extension of time in which to file a reply brief is denied as moot. 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished