Margaret Garcia v. Whirlpool Corporation

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION: Because this court's issuance of a full opinion would be duplicative and would serve no jurisprudential prurpose, we AFFIRM on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion and order of November 5, 2010, granting Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 34(j)(2)(c), decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge.

Case: 10-4559

Document: 006111271428

Filed: 04/11/2012

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0393n.06
No. 10-4559

FILED

Apr 11, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MARGARET GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: MARTIN, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Margaret Garcia appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for her former employer, the Whirlpool Corporation, on her disability
discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and workplace negligence
claims. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we agree that
oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). We find that the district court’s opinion
diligently and correctly sets out the undisputed facts and the governing law.

On appeal, Garcia presents new evidence and argument to support her disability
discrimination claim, asserting that she had the requisite qualifications for reassignment to another
position at Whirlpool. The argument does nothing to revive her disability discrimination claim
because she forfeited it by failing to present it to the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1);

Case: 10-4559

Document: 006111271428

Filed: 04/11/2012

Page: 2

No. 10-4559
Garcia v. Whirlpool Corp.
Bondex Int’l, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 667 F.3d 669, 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding that
a party forfeited a claim “by failing to raise it in any pleadings or at any stage of the proceedings
below”); Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he trial court no longer has
the duty to search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.”)
(quoting Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479–1480 (6th Cir. 1989)). On her claims
of retaliatory discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and workplace negligence,
Garcia presents the same arguments she presented before the district court. But she has failed to
address the deficiencies identified by the district court with regard to each of these arguments.

Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would be duplicative and would serve no
jurisprudential purpose, we AFFIRM on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion and
order of November 5, 2010, granting Whirlpool’s motion for summary judgment.

-2-