Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-1443
MANEKE L. PURCHASE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-cv-00089-D)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Maneke
L.
Purchase
filed
this
action
against
the
42
U.S.C.
2000e
to
2000e-17
(2000).
Specifically,
discriminatory
denial
of
training,
and
The
We
affirm.
We review a district courts order granting summary
judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.
F.3d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 2008).
survive
summary
judgment
on
her
discrimination
McDonnell
(1973).
Douglas
Purchase
Corp.
submitted
v.
no
Green,
direct
411
U.S.
evidence
792,
of
802
racial
Where a
plaintiff
to
makes
such
showing,
the
burden
shifts
the
once
again
shifts
to
the
plaintiff
to
show
that
the
Id.
at 804.
Here, it is clear that Purchase fails to establish
even a prima facie case of discriminatory termination.
Though
of
regular
her
and
eligibility.
performance
assistance
frequently
she
with
contained
had
errors
difficulty
that
claims,
caused
identifying
Purchase
forms
she
processing
claimants
hours she worked or the breaks she took, and regularly failed to
3
Accordingly,
Accordingly,
to
survive
summary
judgment,
she
must
employer]
provided
eligible
for
training
under
the
training
training;
circumstances
discrimination.
to
and
its
employees;
(4) [she]
giving
rise
(3) [she]
was
to
not
an
was
provided
inference
of
reviewing
the
record,
we
find
it
clear
that
Though Purchase
training
materials
provided
to
similarly
situated
white
See Thompson,
312
F.3d
at
649
(noting
that
[c]onclusory
or
speculative
training,
and
that
all
trainees
training
materials.
Purchases
training
and
its
Purchase
verified
herself
confirm
supervisors
sufficiency.
that
received
she
the
monitored
Statements
both
same
made
received,
her
by
and
Accordingly, as no
under
circumstances
giving
rise
to
an
inference
of
Again, our
criticized
the
same
[her]
conduct
job
of
performance
similarly
5
but
situated
did
not
employees;
Purchase told her EEO counselor that she believe[d] that one
white male trainee became a favorite with her supervisor and
many errors were overlooked.
Purchases
supervisors
are
unanimous
in
factual
issues,
Purchases
unsupported
allegations,
Because
no
reasonable
factfinder
could
conclude
that
we
affirm
the
district
courts
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
order
We
legal