Charlene D. Johnson v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., d/b/a Edward Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2411
CHARLENE D. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., d/b/a Edward Jones,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00124-CCB)
Submitted: June 19, 2019 Decided: June 27, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela L. Ashby, JACKSON & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LLC, Upper Marlboro,
Maryland, for Appellant. Todd J. Horn, Karel Mazanec, VENABLE LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Charlene D. Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting her former
employer’s motion for summary judgment in her action for discriminatory and retaliatory
termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We assume, as the district court did, that
Johnson established a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliatory termination. See
Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010). Johnson conceded
that she had no evidence that the stated reason for her termination was pretextual, nor that
her former employer was prejudiced against her on the basis of race. See Guessous v.
Fairview Prop. Invs., LLC, 828 F.3d 208, 216 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing burden-shifting
framework). Instead, she attempts to establish pretext through comparator evidence, but
her comparators were not similarly situated. See Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc.,
922 F.3d 219, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2019). Johnson also argues on appeal that the stated
reason was so implausible and inconsistent that a reasonable factfinder could conclude it
was pretextual. But the district court properly concluded that the former employer’s
stated reason for Johnson’s termination was consistent, reasonable, and well-documented.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., No. 1:17-cv-00124-CCB (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2018). 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 --