Utley v. MCI, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Utley v. MCI, Inc.

320 F. App'x 250

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 2009

Docket08-10328

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 F. App'x 250 (Utley v. MCI, Inc.) 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

Utley v. MCI, Inc., 320 F. App'x 250 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The plaintiffs are several of the thousands of employees laid off by MCI, Inc. (“MCI”), from 2001 through 2004 pursuant to reductions in force (“RIF’s”). They *251 allege that they were chosen for the RIF’s because of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and that MCI retaliated by failing to re-hire them after they had filed age discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court entered summary judgment for MCI.

The district court carefully explained its ruling in an impressive opinion of more than one hundred pages. The court examined each plaintiffs claim and analyzed why he or she is not entitled to relief. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

The plaintiffs are several of the thousands of employees laid off by MCI, Inc. (“MCI”), from 2001 through 2004 pursuant to reductions in force (“RIF’s”). They *251 allege that they were chosen for the RIF’s because of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and that MCI retaliated by failing to re-hire them after they had filed age discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court entered summary judgment for MCI.

The district court carefully explained its ruling in an impressive opinion of more than one hundred pages. The court examined each plaintiffs claim and analyzed why he or she is not entitled to relief. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The 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 forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utley-v-mci-inc-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack