Carlson v. White

Fifth Circuit

Carlson v. White

133 F. App'x 144

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 2005

Docket04-41456

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 133 F. App'x 144 (Carlson v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlson v. White, 133 F. App'x 144 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Terri L. Carlson appeals the district court’s orders granting a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. In her complaint, Carlson alleged that: (1) she was denied access to family medical leave in violation of the Family Medical Leaves Act (“FMLA”); (2) she was denied accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and (3) she was denied promotion and training because of her sex. The district court properly dismissed these claims. Federal employees with more than twelve months of service do not have a private right of *145 action for FMLA violations. See 5 U.S.C. § 6381-6387. Carlson is precluded from bringing her ADA claim because she had already brought a claim through a “negotiated grievance procedure.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301(a). Finally, Carlson’s Title VII claims fail because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Randel v. United States Department of the Navy, 157 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir.1998) (citing Brown v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)).

Accordingly, the orders granting a motion to dismiss and summary judgment are AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Terri L. Carlson appeals the district court’s orders granting a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. In her complaint, Carlson alleged that: (1) she was denied access to family medical leave in violation of the Family Medical Leaves Act (“FMLA”); (2) she was denied accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and (3) she was denied promotion and training because of her sex. The district court properly dismissed these claims. Federal employees with more than twelve months of service do not have a private right of *145 action for FMLA violations. See 5 U.S.C. § 6381-6387. Carlson is precluded from bringing her ADA claim because she had already brought a claim through a “negotiated grievance procedure.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.301(a). Finally, Carlson’s Title VII claims fail because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Randel v. United States Department of the Navy, 157 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir.1998) (citing Brown v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)).

Accordingly, the orders granting a motion to dismiss and summary judgment are AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F. App'x 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-white-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack