Roberta Ahmed v. The Salvation Army , 549 F. App'x 196 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1122
ROBERTA AHMED,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE SALVATION ARMY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-00707-CCB)
Submitted: December 5, 2013 Decided: December 31, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul V. Bennett, James L. Ellison II, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL V.
BENNETT, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Jeanne M.
Phelan, DLA PIPER LLP (US), Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roberta Ahmed appeals the district court’s denial of her
request for additional time to conduct discovery and its order
granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, The
Salvation Army. We affirm.
On October 20, 2010, Ahmed informed her supervisors at The
Salvation Army that she needed surgery for a heart-related
condition and would be missing work later that year. She
requested information about taking leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and The Salvation Army provided her
with paperwork to complete, including a “Certification of Health
Care Provider” form. Ahmed submitted two incomplete versions of
the certification form. After each submission, The Salvation
Army advised her that it could not approve her FMLA leave
without a completed form. After her second incomplete
submission, The Salvation Army specifically explained that the
required information included whether she would be able to
perform some or all of her job functions and her expected period
of incapacity.
Beginning on November 29, Ahmed was absent from work. After
she missed three days of work, The Salvation Army advised her
that failure to submit a completed certification form would
result in termination of her employment. Ahmed never submitted a
completed form.
2
On December 29, after 23 days of unapproved absences, The
Salvation Army terminated Ahmed's employment. In March 2011,
Ahmed filed a charge of disability discrimination against The
Salvation Army with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations.
The Commission dismissed Ahmed’s charge, concluding that her
disability played no factor in her termination and that The
Salvation Army’s actions were legitimate and nondiscriminatory.
Ahmed then filed this action in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, alleging violations of the
FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The
Salvation Army moved to dismiss Ahmed's claims or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. In turn, Ahmed moved for
partial summary judgment on the issue of her FMLA claim; for
additional time to conduct discovery on the issue of her ADA
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d); and for leave
to file an amended complaint.
The district court awarded summary judgment for The
Salvation Army on Ahmed’s FMLA claim. The court held that
because Ahmed never submitted a completed certification form,
The Salvation Army's duty to provide FMLA leave was not
triggered and Ahmed was not entitled to the FMLA's protections.
The court further held that The Salvation Army complied with the
FMLA and its corresponding regulations by informing Ahmed that
her certification form was incomplete, stating in writing what
3
additional information was needed, and providing her with more
than seven calendar days to cure the deficiency. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 825.305(c).
The district court also awarded summary judgment for The
Salvation Army on Ahmed's ADA claim, holding that The Salvation
Army articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
discharging Ahmed and that Ahmed did not offer any evidence to
show that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. The
district court then denied Ahmed’s Rule 56(d) request for
additional discovery on the issue of her ADA claim, holding that
it was simply an unsupported fishing expedition. Finally, the
district court denied Ahmed’s motion to amend her complaint as
moot.
We review the district court’s denial of Ahmed’s motion to
allow further discovery for an abuse of discretion. Nader v.
Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 958-59 (4th Cir. 2008). We review the
district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Hardwick ex
rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433 (4th Cir. 2013). In
conducting our review, we view all evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. We do not weigh the
evidence, but rather we only determine whether there is a
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district
court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially
4
on the reasoning of the district court’s order. See Ahmed v. The
Salvation Army, 2012 WL 6761596 (D. Md. Dec. 28, 2012). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us
and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5