Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Mildred THOMPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY D/B/A Dekalb General Hospital, Defendant-Appellee

916 F.2d 600

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1990-09-17
Topic
labor-and-employment

*601 PER CURIAM: Appellant brought this suit in the district court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court, adopting the magistrate’s report and recommendation (which, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), found no reasonable cause to believe any of appellant’s allegations of race or sex discrimination), ruled against appellant on her Title VII claim. The court subsequently granted summary judgment against appellant on her section 1981 claims of discriminatory discharge and retaliation (because she filed the EEOC claim), holding that Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), foreclosed them. Appellant now challenges the district court’s disposition of her section 1981 claim.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Mildred THOMPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY D/B/A Dekalb General Hospital, Defendant-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
14 opinions
THOMPKINS v. DEKALB COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,916 F.2d 600(11th Cir. 1990)
MILDRED THOMPKINS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DEKALB COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
D/B/A DEKALB GENERAL HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 90-8276.
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
September 17, 1990.
Katrina L. Breeding, Atlanta. Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Martha C. Perrin, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak Stewart, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 1:87-CV-303-RLV; Robert L. Vining, Jr., Judge.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.Page 601
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant brought this suit in the district court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000eet seq.,and42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court, adopting the magistrate's report and recommendation (which, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), found no reasonable cause to believe any of appellant's allegations of race or sex discrimination), ruled against appellant on her Title VII claim. The court subsequently granted summary judgment against appellant on her section 1981 claims of discriminatory discharge and retaliation (because she filed the EEOC claim), holding thatPatterson v. McLean Credit Union,491 U.S. ___,109 S.Ct. 2363,105 L.Ed.2d 132(1989), foreclosed them. Appellant now challenges the district court's disposition of her section 1981 claim.

[2] We agree with the district court thatPattersonforecloses this claim. PuttingPatterson's bar aside, we also find nothing in the record before us that would permit a jury to find for appellant on her section 1981 claim. The entry of summary judgment was therefore appropriate.

[3] AFFIRMED.