Igor Moiseeff v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation

* The Honorable Thomas B. Russell of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0160n.06
Filed: March 2, 2005
No. 04-1042
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
IGOR MOISEEFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, COLE, Circuit Judges, RUSSELL, District Judge *
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Igor Moiseeff appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee DaimlerChrysler 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 DaimlerChrysler’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

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-1042
Moiseeff v. DaimlerChrysler
- 2 -
comprehensive opinion dated November 21, 2003, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --