Filed: Aug. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-40311 Summary Calendar HARTENSE M. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ISP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (G-01-CV-68) _ August 19, 2002 Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* For her race discrimination claim, Hartense Carter appeals an adverse summary judgment for failure to establish a necessary element of her pri
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-40311 Summary Calendar HARTENSE M. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ISP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (G-01-CV-68) _ August 19, 2002 Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* For her race discrimination claim, Hartense Carter appeals an adverse summary judgment for failure to establish a necessary element of her prim..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40311
Summary Calendar
HARTENSE M. CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ISP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(G-01-CV-68)
_________________________________________________________________
August 19, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
For her race discrimination claim, Hartense Carter appeals an
adverse summary judgment for failure to establish a necessary
element of her prima facie case — that, when she was terminated,
she was qualified for the position. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Sreeram v. Louisiana State Univ.
Med. Ctr. - Shreveport,
188 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 1999).
Carter was hired by ISP Technologies, Inc., in 1991; fell
while at work in 1997, injuring her knee; and began a leave of
absence in May 1998 to have knee surgery. Because of continuing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
pain, she had three surgeries, the last just prior to 25 November
1998.
Carter attempted to return to work in March 1999 but was
unable to perform her duties. On 22 June 1999, ISP informed Carter
that company policy required her termination because she was
disabled more than 26 weeks.
It is undisputed that Carter was not physically qualified for
her position on both the date she was eligible for termination
(after receiving 26 weeks of disability benefits) and the date she
was terminated. Because Carter was not physically qualified for
her position when she was terminated, her prima facie case of
discrimination fails. See Davis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
14 F.3d
1082, 1087 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED