Roberta Ahmed v. The Salvation Army

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00707-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999268427].. [13-1122]

Appeal: 13-1122

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/31/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1122

ROBERTA AHMED,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE SALVATION ARMY,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-00707-CCB)

Submitted:

December 5, 2013

Decided:

December 31, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul V. Bennett, James L. Ellison II, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL V.
BENNETT, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant.
Jeanne M.
Phelan, DLA PIPER LLP (US), Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1122

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/31/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Roberta Ahmed appeals the district court’s denial of her
request for additional time to conduct discovery and its order
granting

summary

judgment

in

favor

of

her

employer,

The

Salvation Army. We affirm.
On October 20, 2010, Ahmed informed her supervisors at The
Salvation

Army

that

she

needed

condition

and

would

be

missing

surgery
work

for

later

a

heart-related

that

year.

She

requested information about taking leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and The Salvation Army provided her
with paperwork to complete, including a “Certification of Health
Care Provider” form. Ahmed submitted two incomplete versions of
the
Army

certification
advised

without

a

her

form.
that

completed

After
it

each

could

form.

submission,

not

approve

After

her

The

her

second

Salvation

FMLA

leave

incomplete

submission, The Salvation Army specifically explained that the
required

information

included

whether

she

would

be

able

to

perform some or all of her job functions and her expected period
of incapacity.
Beginning on November 29, Ahmed was absent from work. After
she missed three days of work, The Salvation Army advised her
that

failure

to

submit

a

completed

certification

form

would

result in termination of her employment. Ahmed never submitted a
completed form.
2

Appeal: 13-1122

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/31/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

On December 29, after 23 days of unapproved absences, The
Salvation

Army

terminated

Ahmed's

employment.

In

March

2011,

Ahmed filed a charge of disability discrimination against The
Salvation Army with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations.
The

Commission

disability

dismissed

played

no

Ahmed’s

factor

in

charge,
her

concluding

termination

that
that

and

her
The

Salvation Army’s actions were legitimate and nondiscriminatory.
Ahmed then filed this action in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, alleging violations of the
FMLA

and

Salvation

the

Americans

Army

alternative,

moved

for

to

summary

with

Disabilities

dismiss

Ahmed's

judgment.

In

Act

(“ADA”).

claims

turn,

or,

Ahmed

The

in

the

moved

for

partial summary judgment on the issue of her FMLA claim; for
additional time to conduct discovery on the issue of her ADA
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d); and for leave
to file an amended complaint.
The
Salvation

district
Army

on

court

awarded

Ahmed’s

FMLA

summary
claim.

judgment

The

court

for
held

The
that

because Ahmed never submitted a completed certification form,
The

Salvation

Army's

duty

to

provide

FMLA

leave

was

not

triggered and Ahmed was not entitled to the FMLA's protections.
The court further held that The Salvation Army complied with the
FMLA and its corresponding regulations by informing Ahmed that
her certification form was incomplete, stating in writing what
3

Appeal: 13-1122

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/31/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

additional information was needed, and providing her with more
than seven calendar days to cure the deficiency. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 825.305(c).
The district court also awarded summary judgment for The
Salvation Army on Ahmed's ADA claim, holding that The Salvation
Army

articulated

a

legitimate,

nondiscriminatory

reason

for

discharging Ahmed and that Ahmed did not offer any evidence to
show that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. The
district

court

then

denied

Ahmed’s

Rule

56(d)

request

for

additional discovery on the issue of her ADA claim, holding that
it was simply an unsupported fishing expedition. Finally, the
district court denied Ahmed’s motion to amend her complaint as
moot.
We review the district court’s denial of Ahmed’s motion to
allow further discovery for an abuse of discretion. Nader v.
Blair,

549

F.3d

953,

958-59

(4th

Cir.

2008).

We

review

the

district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Hardwick ex
rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433 (4th Cir. 2013). In
conducting our review, we view all evidence in the light most
favorable

to

the

evidence,

but

nonmoving

rather

we

party.

only

Id.

determine

We

do

not

whether

weigh

there

the

is

a

genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.
Having

reviewed

the

parties’

submissions,

the

district

court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially
4

Appeal: 13-1122

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/31/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

on the reasoning of the district court’s order. See Ahmed v. The
Salvation

Army,

dispense

with

2012
oral

WL

6761596

argument

(D.

because

Md.

Dec.

the

28,

facts

2012).
and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us
and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5