Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
23-2282•Willie Edward Nichols v. Securitas Security Services USA, Incorporated
23-2282Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit15.04.2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2282
WILLIE EDWARD NICHOLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:22-cv-01665-MGL)
Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Edward Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Ellison F. McCoy, Frank Sanders Stern,
JACKSON LEWIS PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Edward Nichols appeals the district court’s judgment entered in Defendant’s
favor after the court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations to grant Defendant’s
motions (1) to dismiss Nichols’ claims of discrimination, in violation of the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, and retaliation, in violation of the
ADA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-
17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634;
and (2) for summary judgment on Nichols’ claims of race and sex discrimination, in
violation of Title VII, sex discrimination, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(d), age discrimination, in violation of the ADEA, and race, sex, and age
discrimination, in violation of the South Carolina Human Affairs Law. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Nichols v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01665-MGL (D.S.C.
Nov. 13, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.