Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Nguyen v. Runyon, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Quang Nguyen, an Asian man, sued his employer the United States Postal Service for failing to promote him to an Electronic Technician position at its Dulles facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2) The employer argued it did not hire Nguyen for the position, among other reasons, because his score on the relevant entrance exam was far below the scores of the successful applicants. 3) The court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the employer, finding that because it is undisputed that Nguyen was not as qualified as the successful applicants, he could not establish a claim of discrimination without showing he was better qualified than those selected.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Nguyen v. Runyon, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) Quang Nguyen, an Asian man, sued his employer the United States Postal Service for failing to promote him to an Electronic Technician position at its Dulles facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2) The employer argued it did not hire Nguyen for the position, among other reasons, because his score on the relevant entrance exam was far below the scores of the successful applicants. 3) The court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the employer, finding that because it is undisputed that Nguyen was not as qualified as the successful applicants, he could not establish a claim of discrimination without showing he was better qualified than those selected.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-11-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-1664

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Quang Nguyen, an Asian man, sued his employer the United States Postal Service for failing to promote him to an Electronic Technician position at its Dulles facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2) The employer argued it did not hire Nguyen for the position, among other reasons, because his score on the relevant entrance exam was far below the scores of the successful applicants. 3) The court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the employer, finding that because it is undisputed that Nguyen was not as qualified as the successful applicants, he could not establish a claim of discrimination without showing he was better qualified than those selected.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Nguyen v. Runyon, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Quang Nguyen, an Asian man, sued his employer the United States Postal Service for failing to promote him to an Electronic Technician position at its Dulles facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2) The employer argued it did not hire Nguyen for the position, among other reasons, because his score on the relevant entrance exam was far below the scores of the successful applicants. 3) The court affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment for the employer, finding that because it is undisputed that Nguyen was not as qualified as the successful applicants, he could not establish a claim of discrimination without showing he was better qualified than those selected.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-1664

    QUANG T. NGUYEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster
    States Postal Service,

    General,

    United
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1054-A)

    Submitted:

    November 17, 1998

    Decided:

    November 30, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Quang T. Nguyen, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Quang Nguyen appeals from a district court order granting his
    employer summary judgment in an action filed under Title VII of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 (1994).
    Nguyen contends that the United States Postal Service (employer)
    failed to grant him a promotion to an Electronic Technician position at its Dulles facility because of his race (Asian). Employer
    contends that Nguyen was not hired, among other reasons, because
    his score on the relevant entrance exam for the position was far
    below the scores of the successful applicants.
    Even assuming that Nguyen could establish a prima facie case
    of discrimination, he could not prevail in this case without establishing that he was better qualified for the relevant position than
    the individuals actually selected. See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 960 (4th Cir. 1996). Because it
    is undisputed that Nguyen was not as well qualified as the successful applicants, we find that the district court properly granted
    employers motion for summary judgment. The district courts order
    is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like