Gladden v. United States Department of Commerce
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Whaley v. Jail Staff (District Court, D. South Carolina 2024)
- Reaves v. Dickens (District Court, D. South Carolina 2023)
- Worsham v. Discount Power, Inc (District Court, D. Maryland 2021)
- Worsham v. Discount Power, Inc (District Court, D. Maryland 2020)
- Barrett, Trustee v. Nancy Ann Rogers, Substitute Trustee (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia 2020)
- Fitch v. The St. Paul's School for Girls (District Court, D. Maryland 2025)
- Bliss v. Garland (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2024)
- Crete Carrier Corp. v. Sullivan & Sons, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2022)
- Bellamy v. Walmart, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2021)
- ARCO National Construction, LLC v. MCM Management Corp. (District Court, D. Maryland 2021)
- Gregory v. Rosenfeld, PLC (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2021)
- Scott v. Associated Catholic Charities Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2020)
- Haddaway v. Baltimore County, Maryland (District Court, D. Maryland 2020)
- Shipp v. Hargan (District Court, D. Maryland 2020)
- East Coast Custom Coaches, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia 2020)
- Meekins v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2020)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Warren K. Gladden appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on Gladden’s claims of employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gladden v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 8:10-cv-01756-PJM, 2011 WL 2619570 (D. Md. June 30, 2011). 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.