Adrienne Walker-Pittman v. MD DepÂ’t of Transportation, No. 15-1226 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1226 ADRIENNE WALKER-PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION, OF TRANSPORTATION; MARYLAND TRANSIT Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00202-CCB) Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Morris, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Jennifer L. Katz, Eric S. Hartwig, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adrienne Walker-Pittman appeals the district court’s order granting Maryland the Maryland Department Transportation of Transportation’s Administration’s motion and to the dismiss Walker-Pittman’s retaliation and race and gender discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); retaliation and age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); retaliation and pursuant the to disability Americans discrimination with claims, Disabilities Act, brought 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); and unlawful employment practices claims, brought pursuant to the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). record and find no reversible error. district court’s Transp., No. dispense with order. See argument have (D. Md. because 2 reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm the Walker-Pittman 1:14-cv-00202-CCB oral We Jan. the v. Md. Dep’t 29, 2015). facts and of We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
