“As plaintiffs oppositional activity concerned disability discrimination [against students], plaintiff could not have reasonably believed that she was opposing an employment practice made unlawful by Title VII”
How later courts described this case
- “As plaintiffs oppositional activity concerned disability discrimination [against students], plaintiff could not have reasonably believed that she was opposing an employment practice made unlawful by Title VII”
- “Allegations of unsatisfactory job performance or insubordination are not sufficiently stigmatizing to establish a deprivation of a liberty interest.”
- probationary teacher does not have protected property interest in continued employment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*175 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Harmon appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her complaint brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and also alleging equal protection and due process violations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harmon v. Cumberland Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:15-cv-00485-BR, 2016 WL 2699115 (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2016). We deny as moot Harmon’s motion to expedite ruling. 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