Filed: Dec. 13, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3659 _ Rosemary Roux, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., * SBC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: December 8, 2005 Filed: December 13, 2005 _ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Rosemary Roux brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against her former employer, Southw
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3659 _ Rosemary Roux, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., * SBC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: December 8, 2005 Filed: December 13, 2005 _ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Rosemary Roux brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against her former employer, Southwe..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-3659 ___________ Rosemary Roux, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., * SBC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: December 8, 2005 Filed: December 13, 2005 ___________ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Rosemary Roux brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against her former employer, Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages (SWBYP). The district court1 granted summary judgment to SWBYP, and Ms. Roux appeals. We affirm. 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Upon careful de novo review of the record, we find that Ms. Roux did not exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her failure-to-promote claim, and that her discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and harassment claims fail because she is not a qualified individual under the ADA as she could not regularly attend work. Because Ms. Roux offered no evidence that SWBYP could have accommodated her disability, any claim that SWBYP failed to participate in the required interactive process was likewise meritless. As for Ms. Roux’s retaliation claim, the district court properly granted summary judgment, because the record does not show that SWBYP took any adverse employment action against Ms. Roux. Finally, Ms. Roux lacked standing to raise her claim that SWBYP harassed her physicians, and her remaining claims were not timely raised to the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motions on appeal. ______________________________ -2-