Harmon v. Saint Gobain Containers, L.L.C. ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 3, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
No. 03-30567
Summary Calendar
_____________________
DEBORAH E. HARMON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAINT GOBAIN CONTAINERS, L.L.C., formerly known as
Ball Foster Container Company, L.L.C.
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-1701
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deborah Harmon filed a complaint alleging that her employer,
Saint Gobain Containers, Inc. (“SG”), discriminated against her in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the
Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. Specifically, Harmon
argued that she was actually disabled and that SG discriminated
against her on the basis of such disability, and, in the
alternative, that she was not actually disabled, but that SG
regarded her as disabled in violation of federal and state law.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
She also argued that SG unlawfully retaliated against her for her
complaints of its allegedly discriminatory treatment, in violation
of the ADA.
The district court, finding no genuine issue of material fact,
granted summary judgment to SG on the discrimination claim, which
Harmon now appeals.1 Harmon also appeals three non-dispositive
motions relating to docket management and supervision of discovery.
We find, for the reasons articulated by the district court,
that Harmon was not disabled as a matter of law and that SG did not
regard her as disabled under the ADA’s definition of that term.
See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (West 2004); Sutton v. United Airlines,
Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1999). We also find -- to the extent
this issue is not waived by Harmon’s scant briefing of it -- that
the district court did not abuse its ample discretion in ruling on
the non-dispositive motions. See, e.g., Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338
F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is
AFFIRMED.
1
The district court also found that Harmon failed to file an
administrative charge on her retaliation claim (which is necessary
to sustain a lawsuit in federal court), and thus dismissed that
claim. Harmon does not appeal this determination.
2