Maryanne Olynyk v. CRA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, INC., and DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.

The Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, *
sitting by designation.
-1-
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0903n.06
Filed: December 18, 2006
Nos. 05-4064/05-4065/05-4066
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARYANNE OLYNYK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CRA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH,
INC., and DAIMLERCHRYSLER
CORP.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
Before: DAUGHTREY and MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and REEVES, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Maryanne Olynyk brought this action against the Defendants-Appellees,
CRA Occupational Health, Inc. and DaimlerChrysler Corp., for alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with the Defendants’ termination of her
employment at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio. The district court granted the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Olynyk failed to file a valid charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the statutory period.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
After a careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we are
convinced that the district court correctly determined that Olynyk’s intake questionnaire could
not be construed as a valid charge within the meaning of Title VII because Olynyk did not
manifest her intent to activate the machinery of Title VII. Thus, we find that the district court
properly concluded that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Olynyk’s claims
and decline to reach the remaining issues raised by the parties on appeal and cross-appeal.
Because the district court’s opinion accurately sets out the law governing this issue and clearly
states the reasons for its conclusion, issuance of a more lengthy opinion in this case would not
serve a useful purpose.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-- 2 of 2 --