MASSENBURG v. INNOVATIVE TALENT SOLUTIONS, INC., 19-1192. (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20191008250
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Nancy Massenburg appeals the district court's order granting Innovative Talent Solutions, Inc.'s ("ITS") motion for summary judgment, granting Lee Air Conditioners, Inc.'s ("Lee Air") motion to dismiss, granting in part ITS's motion to strike Massenburg's second amended complaint, dismissing as moot Massenburg's motion to compel, striking Massenburg's supplemental claims, dismissing as moot Defendants'
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Nancy Massenburg appeals the district court's order granting Innovative Talent Solutions, Inc.'s ("ITS") motion for summary judgment, granting Lee Air Conditioners, Inc.'s ("Lee Air") motion to dismiss, granting in part ITS's motion to strike Massenburg's second amended complaint, dismissing as moot Massenburg's motion to compel, striking Massenburg's supplemental claims, dismissing as moot Defendants' r..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Nancy Massenburg appeals the district court's order granting Innovative Talent Solutions, Inc.'s ("ITS") motion for summary judgment, granting Lee Air Conditioners, Inc.'s ("Lee Air") motion to dismiss, granting in part ITS's motion to strike Massenburg's second amended complaint, dismissing as moot Massenburg's motion to compel, striking Massenburg's supplemental claims, dismissing as moot Defendants' remaining motions, and denying Massenburg's remaining motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Massenburg v. Innovative Talent Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-00957-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2019).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
FootNotes
* The fact that Massenburg filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge against Lee Air after she added Lee Air as a Defendant in the civil action was not a sufficient ground on which to dismiss the discrimination claim brought against Lee Air pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2018). See Henderson v. E. Freight Ways, Inc., 460 F.2d 258, 260 (4th Cir. 1972) (providing that, when right-to-sue letter is issued prior to dismissal of case, it "validate[s] the pending action"). However, we conclude that any error was harmless because Massenburg's Title VII claim against Lee Air is time-barred. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
Source: Leagle
