Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30567/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-30567

Summary Calendar

_____________________

DEBORAH E. HARMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SAINT GOBAIN CONTAINERS, L.L.C., formerly known as

Ball Foster Container Company, L.L.C.

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1701

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Deborah Harmon filed a complaint alleging that her employer,

Saint Gobain Containers, Inc. (“SG”), discriminated against her in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the

Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. Specifically, Harmon

argued that she was actually disabled and that SG discriminated

against her on the basis of such disability, and, in the

alternative, that she was not actually disabled, but that SG

regarded her as disabled in violation of federal and state law.

 Case: 03-30567 Document: 0051397351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2004
1The district court also found that Harmon failed to file an

administrative charge on her retaliation claim (which is necessary

to sustain a lawsuit in federal court), and thus dismissed that

claim. Harmon does not appeal this determination.

2

She also argued that SG unlawfully retaliated against her for her

complaints of its allegedly discriminatory treatment, in violation

of the ADA.

The district court, finding no genuine issue of material fact,

granted summary judgment to SG on the discrimination claim, which

Harmon now appeals.1 Harmon also appeals three non-dispositive

motions relating to docket management and supervision of discovery.

We find, for the reasons articulated by the district court,

that Harmon was not disabled as a matter of law and that SG did not

regard her as disabled under the ADA’s definition of that term.

See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (West 2004); Sutton v. United Airlines,

Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1999). We also find -- to the extent

this issue is not waived by Harmon’s scant briefing of it -- that

the district court did not abuse its ample discretion in ruling on

the non-dispositive motions. See, e.g., Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338

F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30567 Document: 0051397351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2004