Carl Brown v. Marriott International, Incorp, No. 08-2347 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2347 CARL H. BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-01585-AW) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis H. Koh, KOH LAW FIRM, LLC., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas L. McCally, Kelly M. Lippincott, CARR MALONEY, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl H. Brown, an African-American male, appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Marriott International, employment Inc. discrimination ( Marriott ) action and alleging dismissing violations of his Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006) ( Title VII ). Brown alleged that Marriott unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of race when he was not hired to a position as a production support manager. Our opinion review discloses of that the record and this appeal is the district without court's merit. The familiar burden-shifting scheme set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. applies to Brown s claims. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), We find the district court properly determined that, even assuming that Brown established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to establish pretext for Marriott s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to See Texas Dep't of Cmty. hire Brown for the position at issue. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991). Specifically, the record evidence is consistent that, after two telephone interviews and a number of email correspondences, Marriott chose not to select Brown because of his poor verbal 2 and written communication skills. While Brown contends that Marriott gave inconsistent reasons for not hiring him, which support a finding determined that of the pretext, evidence the district established court correctly conclusively that concerns regarding Brown s communication skills began with his first telephone interview and continued throughout the remainder of the interview process, that Marriott had several reasons for not hiring him, and that they communicated the most palpable reason to him. That Marriott chose to provide Brown with an alternate reason for not hiring him does not establish pretext, as found by the district court. We find that there is no evidence that those who chose not to select Brown were motivated by any desire other than to select the position. candidate they felt was the best suited for the See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv., Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 258-59). that the Because Brown failed to establish pretext, we find district court did not improvidently grant the court s summary judgment to Marriott. Accordingly, we affirm district granting Marriott s motion for summary judgment. order We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
