
    Joan M. CASSIDAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENHORNE & O’MARA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-2060.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 29, 2003.
    Decided May 21, 2003.
    Patricia Siemiontkowski, Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Traci L. Burch, Elizabeth Torphy-Donzella, Shawe & Rosenthal, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Joan M. Cassiday appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Green-horne & 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 Discrimination 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 determined the Settlement Agreement and General Release Cassiday executed 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 Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427, 118 S.Ct. 838, 139 L.Ed.2d 849 (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 Green-horne 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., 220 F.Supp.2d 488 (D.Md.2002). 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.  