Honeycutt v. Baltimore County, MD

Fourth Circuit

Honeycutt v. Baltimore County, MD

278 F. App'x 292

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2008

Docket07-1682

StatusUnpublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 278 F. App'x 292 (Honeycutt v. Baltimore County, MD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Honeycutt v. Baltimore County, MD, 278 F. App'x 292 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Loretta Angel Honeycutt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Employer on her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) complaint. The district court granted summary judgment because Honeycutt failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to a three-year statute of limitations period on her claims because her employer willfully violated the FMLA. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dawkins v. Witt, 318 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir.2003). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Dawkins, 318 F.3d at 610. Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., *293 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Generally, FMLA claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1) (2000). If the alleged FMLA violation is willful, the limitations period is extended to three years. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2) (2000). Because Honeycutt filed her complaint more than two years after her termination, the action is barred unless the record demonstrated a willful violation by the Employer.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Honeycutt v. Baltimore County, Md., No. 1:06-cv00958-JFM, 2007 WL 1858691 (D. Md. June 18, 2007). 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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Loretta Angel Honeycutt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Employer on her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) complaint. The district court granted summary judgment because Honeycutt failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to a three-year statute of limitations period on her claims because her employer willfully violated the FMLA. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dawkins v. Witt, 318 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir.2003). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Dawkins, 318 F.3d at 610. Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., *293 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Generally, FMLA claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1) (2000). If the alleged FMLA violation is willful, the limitations period is extended to three years. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2) (2000). Because Honeycutt filed her complaint more than two years after her termination, the action is barred unless the record demonstrated a willful violation by the Employer.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Honeycutt v. Baltimore County, Md., No. 1:06-cv00958-JFM, 2007 WL 1858691 (D. Md. June 18, 2007). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F. App'x 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honeycutt-v-baltimore-county-md-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack