Filed: Mar. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellee.Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.Lynn Labombard on brief pro se.the reasons stated by the district judge.to represent other employees.782 F.2d 5 (1 st Cir.based on the alleged frivolousness of this appeal.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1907
LYNN M. LABOMBARD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Lynn Labombard on brief pro se.
Debra Dyleski-Najjar and Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP on
brief for appellee.
March 30, 2000
Per Curiam. We deny the appellant’s request for
oral argument.
After carefully considering the briefs and record
on appeal, we affirm the judgment below for substantially
the reasons stated by the district judge. The plain
language of the statute limits liability to aggrieved
employees who suffer an employment loss as a result of a
plant closing. 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1). The statutory
language is decisive. A.M. Capen’s Co. Inc. v. American
Trading and Production Corporation, 202 F.3d 469, 473 (1 st
Cir. 2000); Brady v. Credit Recovery Company, Inc.,
160 F.3d
64, 66-67 (1st Cir. 1998). At summary judgment, it was
undisputed that the appellant lost her job for other
reasons. In addition, the appellant was not in a position
to represent other employees. See Key v. Gillette Company,
782 F.2d 5 (1 st Cir. 1986); Andrews v. Bechtel Power
Corporation,
780 F.2d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 1985).
Without deciding the merits of such a motion, we
deny at this time the appellee’s motion for fees or costs
based on the alleged frivolousness of this appeal. The
appellee must comply with the local rules in seeking any
such relief.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
