Marquardt v. Leavitt

Fifth Circuit

Marquardt v. Leavitt

294 F. App'x 112

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 2008

Docket08-10190

StatusUnpublished

This text of 294 F. App'x 112 (Marquardt v. Leavitt) 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

Marquardt v. Leavitt, 294 F. App'x 112 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Lynda Marquardt appeals a summary judgment entered in her title VII case. She mainly contends the district court should not have dismissed her claims of age and sex discrimination for failure to initiate her administrative remedies within the required period of time. For the most part, however, she appears to acknowledge that her argument for timeliness is foreclosed by Rowe v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 186 (5th Cir.1992), on which the district court properly relied. On her retaliation claim, the district court correctly concluded that Marquardt failed to show a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment action.

The district court issued a comprehensive and persuasive Memorandum Opinion and Order. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set fourth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Lynda Marquardt appeals a summary judgment entered in her title VII case. She mainly contends the district court should not have dismissed her claims of age and sex discrimination for failure to initiate her administrative remedies within the required period of time. For the most part, however, she appears to acknowledge that her argument for timeliness is foreclosed by Rowe v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 186 (5th Cir.1992), on which the district court properly relied. On her retaliation claim, the district court correctly concluded that Marquardt failed to show a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment action.

The district court issued a comprehensive and persuasive Memorandum Opinion and Order. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

*

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 fourth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 F. App'x 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquardt-v-leavitt-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack