UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2192
LINDA A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GIANT FOOD, INCORPORATED; ROYAL AHOLD; JIM
FRAZETTI, In his official capacity as Vice-
President of Store Operations, Giant Food,
Incorporated; COLLEEN MCDANIEL, In her
official capacity as District Manager, Giant
Food, Incorporated,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
01-1314-8-PJM)
Submitted: November 9, 2006 Decided: January 10, 2007
Before WIDENER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Widener wrote an
opinion concurring in the result.
Jo Ann P. Myles, Largo, Maryland, for Appellant. Connie N.
Bertram, WINSTON & STRAWN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linda A. Williams filed this action against her former
employer, Giant Food Inc., alleging employment discrimination,
retaliation, and constructive discharge. The district court
dismissed Williams’ initial complaint but granted her leave to file
an amended complaint alleging failure-to-promote claims under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.)
and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Following limited discovery, the district
court granted summary judgment to Giant Food on the
failure-to-promote claims, and Williams appealed. Although we
affirmed most of the district court’s rulings, we concluded that
with additional discovery Williams “might be able to prove that
Giant Food did not make her aware of promotion opportunities for
which she would have applied or that discriminatory practices made
any application futile;” therefore, we reversed the summary
judgment on her § 1981 failure-to-promote claims and remanded this
case for further proceedings. Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370
F.3d 423, 435 (4th Cir. 2004).*
On remand, the parties conducted additional discovery, and
Giant Food and Royal Ahold then moved for summary judgment. After
conducting a summary judgment hearing, the district court granted
*
As we noted in our previous opinion, although Williams also
sued Royal Ahold (as the parent corporation of Giant Food) and two
Giant Food officials, Jim Frazetti and Colleen McDaniel, Frazetti
and McDaniel are no longer involved in this litigation. 370 F.3d
at 427 n.1.
2
the motion, concluding:
This is really a case that has not resulted in any proof
beyond the fact, quite frankly, that arguably the
promotion opportunities were not posted. Allowing that
that was in dispute, there are certain other elements
that, even had they been posted, even had there been
applications filed, the question would still remain was
the plaintiff qualified for the positions, was there a
legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting
her, was that alleged reason in any way pretextual, and
on those last three elements, there’s just no question
that the plaintiff’s evidence does not make the grade.
J.A. 1044-45.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to Williams. Williams, 370
F.3d at 428. Having conducted such a review, we find that the
district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm substantially
on the reasoning of the district court. 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
3
WIDENER, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the result.
4