63 F. App'x 169
4th Cir.
2003
Case Information

*1 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Patricia Siemiontkowski, Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Traci L. Burch, Elizabeth Torphy-Donzella, SHAWE & ROSEN- THAL, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

*2 2 C ASSIDAY v. G REENHORNE & O’M ARA Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Joan M. Cassiday appeals the district court’s order granting sum- mary judgment in favor of her former employer, Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc., on her claims of sex and age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002) and the Age Dis- crimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp. 2002). We affirm.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix and the district court’s order. We conclude the district court properly deter- mined the Settlement Agreement and General Release Cassiday exe- cuted satisfied the requirements of the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f) (2000), and therefore she waived her rights under the ADEA. See Ourbe v. Entergy Opera- tions, Inc. , 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998). We also conclude the district court properly determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Cassiday knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights under Title VII. See Melanson v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. , 281 F.3d 272, 276 & n.4 (1st Cir. 2002). Because no evidence in the record suggests Cassiday’s lay-off was due to a reduction in force, we find Cassiday’s contention that Greenhorne was required to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H) meritless. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cassiday v. Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc. , No. CA-01-2150-PJM (D. Md. filed Aug. 6, 2002; entered Aug. 7, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED