Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
05-1829•Shirley Phull v. Interstate Management Company, LLC
05-1829Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit23.03.2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1829
SHIRLEY PHULL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-04-1536-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 23, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elaine C. Bredehoft, Peter C. Cohen, CHARLSON, BREDEHOFT & COHEN,
P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael A. Viccora, Susan
Jeanblanc Cohen, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Shirley Phull appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her civil action alleging claims of employment
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Phull v. Interstate Mgmt. Co., No. CA-04-1536-1 (E.D. Va. July 8,
2005). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.