Melvin L. Crawley v. Norfolk Southern Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1770
MELVIN L. CRAWLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cv-00267-JCT)
Argued: May 16, 2012 Decided: June 27, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and Robert J.
CONRAD, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Western
District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Lachlan William Smith, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, PC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. James Stanton
Whitehead, SIDLEY & AUSTIN, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Timothy Earl Cupp, CUPP & CUPP, PC,
Harrisonburg, Virginia; Robert F. Childs, Jr., WIGGINS, CHILDS,
QUINN & PANTAZIS, PC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant.
William B. Poff, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZELGROVE, PLC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Crawley, an African-American executive at Norfolk
Southern Corporation, commenced this action against his
employer, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Crawley’s claims arise from Norfolk Southern’s disciplining him
for the manner in which he handled a Norfolk Southern employee’s
work-related injury.
On Norfolk Southern’s motion for summary judgment, the
district court conducted a hearing, after which it issued a
thorough opinion, reviewing the record and making conclusions of
law. At bottom, the court concluded that Crawley had “not
demonstrated evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could
find that Norfolk Southern discriminated against him.” From the
district court’s judgment, dated June 20, 2011, Crawley filed
this appeal.
After considering Crawley’s arguments, as contained in his
briefs and as presented at oral argument, and reviewing the
record de novo, taking the facts and reasonable inferences to be
drawn from them in the light most favorable to him, see Emmett
v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 292, 297 (4th Cir. 2008), we affirm for the
reasons given by the district court. See Crawley v. Norfolk
Southern Corp., Civil Action No. 7:08-cv-00267, 2011 WL 2469875

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(W.D. Va. June 20, 2011). While it is doubtful that Crawley
established a prima facie case for discriminatory discipline,
see Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d 507, 511 (4th Cir.
1993), we agree with the district court that the record evidence
failed to demonstrate that Norfolk Southern acted by reason of
Crawley’s race. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --