Lorraine Little v. John Potter, No. 11-1082 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1082 LORRAINE LITTLE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. JOHN E. POTTER, a/k/a United States Post Office, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cv-00886-JFA) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. KEENAN, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 14, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorraine Little, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorraine Little appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of John E. Potter, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, on Little s claim of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 2000e-2000e-17 (2006). * We affirm. We review de novo an award of summary judgment. PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2009). district Little contends on appeal that a jury, rather than the court, should determine whether her dismissal was motivated by retaliation for her assertion of rights protected under Title VII. However, the district court did not err in concluding that Little failed to offer sufficient evidence that Potter s nondiscriminatory reason for the dismissal was false, and that discrimination was the real reason for the challenged action. Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 218 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the district court properly awarded summary judgment on this claim. * Little s claim of hostile work environment proceeded to trial, and the jury s verdict in favor of Little on that claim is not before us. 2 Accordingly, we deny Little s motion for appointment of counsel dispense and with affirm oral the argument district because court s the judgment. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
