Filed: Sep. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 25, 2008 No. 08-10190 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk LYNDA MARQUARDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:06-CV-893 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lynda Marquardt
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 25, 2008 No. 08-10190 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk LYNDA MARQUARDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:06-CV-893 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lynda Marquardt a..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 25, 2008
No. 08-10190
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
LYNDA MARQUARDT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,
Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:06-CV-893
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lynda Marquardt appeals a summary judgment entered in her title VII
case. She mainly contends the district court should not have dismissed her
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
No. 08-10190
claims of age and sex discrimination for failure to initiate her administrative
remedies within the required period of time. For the most part, however, she
appears to acknowledge that her argument for timeliness is foreclosed by Rowe
v. Sullivan,
967 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1992), on which the district court properly re-
lied. On her retaliation claim, the district court correctly concluded that Mar-
quardt failed to show a causal link between her protected activity and the ad-
verse employment action.
The district court issued a comprehensive and persuasive Memorandum
Opinion and Order. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the
reasons given by the district court.