The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-1677•TONDRA PRIDDY, Individually v. the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corporation
20-1677Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 10, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1677
TONDRA PRIDDY, Individually,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING
CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MOSES CONE MEDICAL SERVICES, a North Carolina Corporation; THE
MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a North Carolina Corporation; CONE
HEALTH CONNECTED CARE, LLC, a North Carolina Corporation; MATRIX
ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00405-LCB-JLW)
Submitted: July 21, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021
Before WILKINSON, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Lisa Walker, LISA WALKER ATTORNEY AT LAW PLLC, Knightdale, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Kip D. Nelson, Lisa W. Arthur, Julianna T. Earp, FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Tondra Priddy appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor
of Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corporation in Priddy’s action alleging
claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 26011-2654; the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634; and North Carolina public
policy, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Priddy v.
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. Operating Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00405-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.
May 21, 2020). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.