Christine Simpson v. Kelly Services, Incorporated
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60702 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 06/07/2017 [16-60702]
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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?