Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cooper v. AT&T/Lucent Technology, 99-50093 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-50093 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 06, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F0R THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-50093 Summary Calendar _ CYNTHIA ANN COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS AT&T/LUCENT TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-97-CV-628) _ December 6, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cynthia Ann Cooper appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment and order dismissing her suit seeking relief primarily unde
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F0R THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ No. 99-50093 Summary Calendar ___________________________ CYNTHIA ANN COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS AT&T/LUCENT TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee. ___________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (SA-97-CV-628) ___________________________________________________ December 6, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cynthia Ann Cooper appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment and order dismissing her suit seeking relief primarily under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons laid out in the magistrate’s report and recommendation, which the court accepted. First, Ms. Cooper has not advanced any facts suggesting that she suffered from an ADA-qualifying impairment or that AT&T * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. regarded her as having an impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities. Second, Cooper failed to dispute that AT&T had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate her. Third, Cooper has presented no summary judgment evidence indicating that AT&T’s actions were taken in retaliation for her engaging in protected activity. Fourth, Cooper’s additional causes of action are time-barred. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer