96 F. 3d 1438 - Karlinsky v. The Mayor and Council of Rockville

Bertha Karlinsky appeals from the district court's orders granting dismissal of the individual Defendants, and summary judgment in favor of Defendant Rockville, and dismissing her employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985 & Supp.1996). Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that this appeal is without merit.

First, the district court's dismissal of the individual Defendants was proper. See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 510-11 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3457 (U.S. Dec. 12, 1994) (No. 94-719). Second, Karlinsky failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., --- U.S. ----, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. April 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir.1991). Moreover, Karlinsky failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Rockville proffered to support its decisions to discipline and ultimately terminate her. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of nondiscrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).

We therefore affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* Karlinsky v. Mayor and Council of Rockville, No. CA-94-2942-AW (D. Md. Feb. 7, 1995; Feb. 27, 1996). 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.