McCully v. American Airlines, Inc. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                      FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    December 16, 2010
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    MEGAN MCCULLY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    No. 10-5041
    v.                                      (D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00310-CVE-PJC)
    (N.D. Okla.)
    AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
    Judges.
    Megan McCully appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
    favor of American Airlines, Inc. (AA) in her cause of action alleging violations of
    the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Oklahoma Anti-
    Discrimination Act (OADA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
    (FMLA). The suit also alleged breach of contract and a violation of Oklahoma
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
    collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
    with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    public policy. The district court, in a thorough forty-two-page decision, granted
    summary judgment to AA on all counts. Ms. McCully now appeals, asserting the
    district court erred on all counts.
    We need not set forth the facts of the case herein, as they were set forth in
    detail in the district court’s summary judgment decision. “We review a grant of
    summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.”
    Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 
    619 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (10th Cir. 2010)
    (quotation omitted). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), the district court should
    grant summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials
    on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
    fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 1 On appeal,
    [w]e examine the record to determine whether any genuine issue of
    material fact was in dispute; if not, we determine whether the
    substantive law was applied correctly, and in so doing we examine
    the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
    most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
    McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 
    149 F.3d 1125
    , 1128 (10th Cir. 1998)
    (internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets omitted). “[A] ‘genuine’ issue is one
    for which ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
    1
    This court is aware that Rule 56 has recently been amended, effective
    December 1, 2010. We have applied, and refer to herein, the version of the rule
    that was in effect at the time summary judgment was granted.
    -2-
    the nonmoving party.’” Pelt v. Utah, 
    539 F.3d 1271
    , 1280 (10th Cir. 2008)
    (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    , 248 (1986)).
    After careful review of the district court’s decision, the appellate record,
    and the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district
    court correctly granted summary judgment to AA for the reasons set forth the
    court’s through and well-reasoned opinion and order of March 3, 2010.
    We therefore AFFIRM that order and the accompanying judgment.
    Entered for the Court
    John C. Porfilio
    Senior Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-5041

Judges: Hartz, Porfilio, Brorby

Filed Date: 12/16/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024