Moiseeff v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

Sixth Circuit

Moiseeff v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

123 F. App'x 235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2005

Docket04-1042

StatusUnpublished

This text of 123 F. App'x 235 (Moiseeff v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moiseeff v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 123 F. App'x 235 (6th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Igor Moiseeff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Daimler-Chrysler Corporation in this case brought pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. The district court found that Moiseeff did not establish a prima, facie case of retaliation under the FMLA because he failed to show a causal connection between his FMLA-protected leave and his discharge. In the alternative, the court found that Moiseeff failed to show that Daimler-Chrysler’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge was pretextual.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., USA, Inc., 110 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.1997). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions. For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive opinion dated November 21, 2003, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Igor Moiseeff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Daimler-Chrysler Corporation in this case brought pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. The district court found that Moiseeff did not establish a prima, facie case of retaliation under the FMLA because he failed to show a causal connection between his FMLA-protected leave and his discharge. In the alternative, the court found that Moiseeff failed to show that Daimler-Chrysler’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge was pretextual.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., USA, Inc., 110 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.1997). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions. For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive opinion dated November 21, 2003, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. App'x 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moiseeff-v-daimlerchrysler-corp-ca6-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack