U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2001

Reese v. Science Applications

Reese v. Science Applications
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 19, 2001

Reese v. Science Applications

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2175

WILLIAM REESE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION INFORMATION SERVICES-RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMA- TION SYSTEM, formerly known as Boeing Infor- mation Services-Reserve Component Automation System; BOEING INFORMATION SERVICES-RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYSTEM, Defendants - Appellees, and

ROBERT BEYSTER, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Science Applications International Corporation; PHILIP CONDIT, Chief Executive Officer, Boeing Company; WILLIAM DELANY, President, Science Applications International Corporation-Information Services (formerly known as Boeing Information Services); DOUG PENNER, Controller, Science Applications In- ternational Corporation-Information Services (formerly known as Boeing Information Services); BEN DOLE, Program Manager, Science Applications International Corporation-Infor- mation Services-Reserve Component Automation System (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System); JANA BRESSON, Human Resources Manager, Science Applications International Corporation- Information Services-Reserve Component Automa- tion System) (formerly known as Boeing Infor- mation Services-Reserve Component Automation System); WILLIAM MCGARRETT, Business Manager, Science Applications International Corpora- tion-Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automa- tion System); JOE TOTH, Finance Manager, Science Applications International Corpora- tion-Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System) (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automa- tion System); CARL RUGGIERO, Cost Management Manager, Science Applications International Corporation-Information Services-Reserve Com- ponent Automation System (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System); FREDRICK ZOESCH, Business Planing Manager, Science Applications In- ternational Corporation-Information Services- Reserve Component Automation System (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System); JOY PETRUZZI, Manager Performance Reporting, Science Appli- cations International Corporation-Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System; JIM KIENHOFER, Program Planning Manager, Science Applications International Corpora- tion-Information Services-Reserve Component Automation System (formerly known as Boeing Information Services-Reserve Component Automa- tion System), Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1167-A)

Submitted: June 20, 2001 Decided: July 19, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Reese, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ronold Sparks, Jr., HERGE, SPARKS & CHRISTOPHER, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: William L. Reese appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (“SAIC”), as to his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). We have reviewed the briefs, the record, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Reese v. Science Appli- cations Int’l Corp., No. CA 99-1167-A (E.D. Va. July 27, 2000). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.