William McKelvy v. Capital One Services, LLC, No. 10-2031 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2031 WILLIAM MCKELVY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant Appellee, and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-000821-JRS) Submitted: April 4, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne M. Scriven, SCRIVEN LAW OFFICES, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Rodney A. Satterwhite, Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Latoya C. Asia, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William McKelvy appeals the district court's order granting Capital One Services, LLC s motion for summary judgment on his claims of discriminatory removal of supervisory duties and termination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2010); discriminatory denial of promotion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a (2006); and state law claims for breach of contract, wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional erred distress. when oppose it: Capital (i) McKelvy failed One s argues to afford summary that the McKelvy judgment district eleven motion; court days (ii) to denied McKelvy s motion to compel; (iii) determined that McKelvy failed to rebut the at-will employment presumption; (iv) granted summary judgment on McKelvy s retaliation claim based on Capital One s alleged refusal to pay severance benefits if he did not withdraw his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge; and (v) improperly relied on hearsay evidence to find that Capital One established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. We have reversible error. final order. reviewed the record and have found no Accordingly, we affirm the district court s McKelvy v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 3:09-cv3 00821-JRS (E.D. Va. filed August 20, 2010; entered August 25, 2010). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
