Nancy Adair v. McGuireWoods LLP
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NANCY MATHIAS ADAIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP; JOSEPH G. TIRONE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-02602-MJG)
July 29, 2009
August 6, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nancy Mathias Adair, Appellant Pro Se. William Willis Carrier, III, Jaime Walker Luse, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Nancy Mathias Adair appeals from the district court's judgment after a jury trial dismissing all claims against
McGuireWoods, LLP ("McGuireWoods").
Adair claimed McGuireWoods
interfered with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2006) ("FMLA") and retaliated
against her for asserting her entitlement to leave under the Act. She also asserted state law claims of defamation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
When reviewing the evidence at trial, this court must determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. The evidence must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the party's favor. The court must not weigh Baynard v.
the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.
Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 234-35 (4th Cir. 2001); Herold v. Hajoca Corp., 864 F.2d 317, 319 (4th Cir. 1988). We find the evidence
supports the jury's findings that McGuireWoods did not interfere with Adair's right to seek leave under the FMLA, nor was she terminated in retaliation for having sought protection under the FMLA. With respect to the trial issues raised by Adair on appeal, we find no reversible error with the district court's evidentiary decisions, the manner 2 in which the trial was to
discretion by granting in part McGuireWoods' motion in limine. See Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008)
(stating standard of review).
We further find no reversible
error with respect to evidence about one of the Defendants being injured on September 11, 2001. Because Adair cannot show
prejudice, it was also not reversible error to inquire as to whether Adair's brother could afford to cover the costs of
providing care for their mother. While we review decisions made on summary judgment de novo, we find no reversible error with respect to the district court's summary decision judgment to to drop one of the on Defendants Adair's or to grant and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. As for the remaining issues raised by Adair, we find no merit. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?