Tangia McCormick v. Archstone-Smith Communities , 295 F. App'x 953 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-10678 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 6, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 06-60966-CV-DLG
TANGIA MCCORMICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant-
Cross-Appellee,
versus
ARCHSTONE-SMITH COMMUNITIES, LCC,
a Florida foreign limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee-
Cross-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 6, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Tangia McCormick was employed as a leasing consultant by
Defendant Archstone-Smith Communities, LLC (“Archstone”“) when she suffered
complications of pregnancy. McCormick took a leave of absence and received short-
term disability payments. When she exhausted her short-term disability benefits,
McCormick was still unable to return to work and began receiving payments pursuant
to the long-term disability policy (“the Policy”) that was a benefit of her employment.
She received ten weeks of payments pursuant to the Policy. When, to substantiate a
request for additional benefits, she provided the administrator of the Policy (not
Archstone) with medical information, the administrator determined that McCormick
was not medically eligible for additional benefits. Also, while she was on leave,
Archstone sold the property where McCormick had worked and terminated
McCormick’s employment.
McCormick sued Archstone for violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (“the ERISA claim”) and violations of the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act (together, “the discrimination
claims”), alleging that Archstone discriminated against her on the basis of her
pregnancy when it denied her continued disability benefits and terminated her
employment.
2
The district court granted summary judgment to Archstone on all counts of the
complaint. McCormick appeals. Archstone cross-appeals, complaining that a finding
in the district court’s order is erroneous and prejudicial to Archstone and must be
corrected.
We address McCormick’s appeal first. On the ERISA claim, we find no error
in the district court’s finding that Archstone is not a fiduciary for purposes of the
ERISA statute and, therefore, is not a proper defendant to this claim. Thus, we affirm
the summary judgment granted Archstone on Count I of McCormick’s complaint. On
the discrimination claims, we also affirm the summary judgments granted Archstone.
McCormick presented no evidence to rebut Archstone’s nondiscriminatory reason for
terminating her employment. (R.2-81 at 16.) Neither did she present evidence that
it was untrue that termination of her disability benefits was based, as the administrator
explained, on her medical condition. (R.2-81 at 17.) Because we affirm the summary
judgements, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s order awarding
costs.
With regard to Archstone’s cross-appeal, there is an issue of jurisdiction. The
district court granted summary judgment to Archstone. Therefore, as the prevailing
party, Archstone has no standing to appeal the judgment. Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-
Dade County, 195 F.3d 1225, 1230 (11th Cir. 1999). This case does not fall within
3
the narrow exception to the rule for prevailing parties who are prejudiced by the
collateral estoppel effects of a court’s order. Id. Archstone’s concern that the district
court’s finding that the Policy is facially discriminatory may harm it in future
litigation is unwarranted. There can be no collateral estoppel effect of that finding
because that determination was not critical to the judgment in this case. As the
district court found, and as we hold above, even if the Policy is facially
discriminatory, McCormick’s claims of discrimination fail. Archstone’s cross-appeal
is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED.
4