Christine Simpson v. Kelly Services, Incorporated


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60702 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 06/07/2017 [16-60702]

Download PDF
Case: 16-60702 Document: 00513997179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60702 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 17, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CHRISTINE R. SIMPSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus KELLY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:14-CV-972 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Christine Simpson sued her former employer, Kelly Services, Incorporated (“Kelly”), claiming that her termination violated the Americans with 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-60702 Document: 00513997179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 No. 16-60702 Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act. The district court granted Kelly’s motion for summary judgment based on judicial estoppel because Simpson had failed to disclose her claim against Kelly in her bankruptcy proceedings. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law and have heard the arguments of counsel. The district court faithfully applied the requirements of Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2012), regarding judicial estoppel, to these facts. In particular, the court explained why, under the applicable law, Simpson cannot reasonably contend that her failure to disclose was inadvertent. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned order entered on September 26, 2016. 2

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?