Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Woods v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

579 F.2d 43

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-07-24
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: In No. 76-2234, plaintiff below appeals from a judgment in favor of his former employer, Safeway Stores, Inc., rendered by the district court after a full trial on the merits of an action brought by plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We affirm the judgment for the reasons fully and carefully stated by the district judge in discussing *44the merits of plaintiff’s case. Woods v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 420 F.Supp. 35 (E.D. Va.1976).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Woods v. Safeway Stores, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
WOODS v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC.,579 F.2d 43(4th Cir. 1978)
MR. ANDREW WOODS, APPELLANT, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., APPELLEE.
SAFEWAY STORES, INC., APPELLANT, v. MR. ANDREW WOODS, APPELLEE.
Nos. 76-2234, 76-2235.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 9, 1978.
Decided July 24, 1978.
Robert B. Fitzpatrick, Washington D.C., for Andrew Woods.

James Patrick McElligott, Jr., Richmond, Va. (William H. King, Sr., John M. Oakey, Jr., McGuire, Woods Battle, Richmond, Va., on brief), for Safeway Stores, Inc.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, Robert R. Merhrige, Jr., Judge.
Before WINTER and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN,fn*Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In No. 76-2234, plaintiff below appeals from a judgment in favor of his former employer, Safeway Stores, Inc., rendered by the district court after a full trial on the merits of an action brought by plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We affirm the judgment for the reasons fully and carefully stated by the district judge in discussingPage 44the merits of plaintiff's case.Woods v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,420 F. Supp. 35(E.D. Va. 1976).

[2] This decision makes it unnecessary to reach the question of the timeliness of plaintiff's filing of his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which the district judge decided in favor of plaintiff. Defendant's appeal, No. 76-2235, is therefore dismissed.1

[3] No. 76-2234 — Affirmed.

[4] No. 76-2235 — Dismissed.Page 294
  1. Senior District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. ↩
  2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the affidavit of the Director of the Washington, D.C. office of EEOC has been granted. ↩