Susan Plott Stokes v. Amf Bakery Systems

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2158
SUSAN PLOTT STOKES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMF BAKERY SYSTEMS; JASON WARD, President and CEO; MONIKA
EIDEN, Global HR Director; COLIN POWELL, Global V.P. of Operations;
ANTHONY FOX, Director of Operations; KEITH FOLEY, Engineering Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00789-RCY)
Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 26, 2026
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Susan Plott Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman Dunn, DUNN CRAIG &
FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Susan Plott Stokes appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions
to dismiss Stokes’ complaint alleging that her employment was terminated because of her
gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See, e.g., Johnson v.
Baltimore City, Md., 163 F.4th 808, 815 (4th Cir. 2026) (recognizing that “[a] claim of
discrimination in the enforcement of employee disciplinary measures by reference to a
comparator requires that the plaintiff’s prohibited conduct was comparable in seriousness
to the misconduct of employees outside the protected class,” and analyzing whether
plaintiff adequately alleged that she was similarly situated to comparators, including
whether the comparators “held the same job description” and “were subject to the same
standards” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Fry v. Rand Constr. Corp., 964 F.3d 239,
248 (4th Cir. 2020) (reiterating that “[i]t is the perception of the decision maker which is
relevant” in determining whether discipline is justified, “not the self-assessment of the
plaintiff” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Stokes v. AMF Bakery Sys.,
No. 3:24-cv-00789-RCY (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2025). 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 --