Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
04-3651•Nery G. Ventura v. Dept. of Homeland
04-3651Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30.12.2005
1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-3659
___________
Rosemary Roux, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., *
SBC, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: December 8, 2005
Filed: December 13, 2005
___________
Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Rosemary Roux brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) against her former employer, Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages (SWBYP).
The district court1 granted summary judgment to SWBYP, and Ms. Roux appeals.
We affirm.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Upon careful de novo review of the record, we find that Ms. Roux did not
exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her failure-to-promote claim, and
that her discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and harassment claims fail because
she is not a qualified individual under the ADA as she could not regularly attend
work. Because Ms. Roux offered no evidence that SWBYP could have
accommodated her disability, any claim that SWBYP failed to participate in the
required interactive process was likewise meritless. As for Ms. Roux’s retaliation
claim, the district court properly granted summary judgment, because the record does
not show that SWBYP took any adverse employment action against Ms. Roux.
Finally, Ms. Roux lacked standing to raise her claim that SWBYP harassed her
physicians, and her remaining claims were not timely raised to the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending
motions on appeal.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.