Daughety v. Geren, No. 07-1337 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1337 JOAN C. DAUGHETY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETE GEREN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Army; MICHAEL STEWART, Colonel; JOHN IVES, Installation Commander, Defendants - Appellees. --------------------------------------------THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (8:04cv-02114-CBD) Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel P. Bennett, LAW OFFICES OF JOEL P. BENNETT, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Stephen Z. Chertkof, HELLER, HURON, CHERTKOF, LERNER, SIMON & SALZMAN, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Supporting Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Joan C. Daughety appeals the magistrate judge s* order granting Defendant s summary judgment motion on her discriminatory discharge claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). See Daughety v. Geren, No. 8:04-cv-02114-CBD (D. Md. filed March 20, 2006; entered March 21, 2006). find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and The jury s finding that the Defendant s proffered non-discriminatory reasons motivated its progressive discipline of Daughety -- precludes Daughety s appellate challenge of discriminatory discharge. of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 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.