Labombard v. Textron Automotive

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2000
• Docket: 99-1907
• Status: Published

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 99-1907

LYNN M. LABOMBARD,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

Lynn Labombard on brief pro se. Debra Dyleski-Najjar and Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP on brief for appellee.

March 30, 2000 Per Curiam. We deny the appellant’s request for

oral argument.

After carefully considering the briefs and record

on appeal, we affirm the judgment below for substantially

the reasons stated by the district judge. The plain

language of the statute limits liability to aggrieved

employees who suffer an employment loss as a result of a

plant closing. 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1). The statutory

language is decisive. A.M. Capen’s Co. Inc. v. American

Trading and Production Corporation, 202 F.3d 469, 473 (1 st

Cir. 2000); Brady v. Credit Recovery Company, Inc., 160 F.3d

64, 66-67 (1st Cir. 1998). At summary judgment, it was

undisputed that the appellant lost her job for other

reasons. In addition, the appellant was not in a position

to represent other employees. See Key v. Gillette Company,

782 F.2d 5 (1 st Cir. 1986); Andrews v. Bechtel Power

Corporation, 780 F.2d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 1985).

Without deciding the merits of such a motion, we

deny at this time the appellee’s motion for fees or costs

based on the alleged frivolousness of this appeal. The

appellee must comply with the local rules in seeking any

such relief.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).