Dardar v. Potter

Fifth Circuit

Dardar v. Potter

108 F. App'x 931

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 2004

Docket04-30341

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 F. App'x 931 (Dardar v. Potter) 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

Dardar v. Potter, 108 F. App'x 931 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Sophia A. Dardar (“Dardar”) appeals the district court’s order granting *932 defendants’ motion to dismiss and alternatively for summary judgment. We find that the appellant does not have standing to sue under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), because she has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact disputing her status as an independent contractor of the United States Postal Service. Mares v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 1066, 1067-69 (5th Cir.1985). Similarly, we find her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the sovereign immunity afforded to the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Finally, we agree with the district court’s assessment that only the Federal Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over appellants breach of contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1846.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Appellant Sophia A. Dardar (“Dardar”) appeals the district court’s order granting *932 defendants’ motion to dismiss and alternatively for summary judgment. We find that the appellant does not have standing to sue under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), because she has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact disputing her status as an independent contractor of the United States Postal Service. Mares v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 1066, 1067-69 (5th Cir.1985). Similarly, we find her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the sovereign immunity afforded to the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Finally, we agree with the district court’s assessment that only the Federal Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over appellants breach of contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1846.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

*

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)

108 F. App'x 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dardar-v-potter-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack