UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KIMBERLY GOTTLIEB, formerly known 

as Kimberly Akers,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOWL AMERICA, INCORPORATED; THE  No. 03-1248

BOWL AMERICA, INCORPORATED

EMPLOYEES’ PROFIT SHARING PLAN;

THE BOWL AMERICA, INCORPORATED

1987 STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CA-00-1342-A)

Argued: January 21, 2004

Decided: March 5, 2004

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER

and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Mary Ann Kelly, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven

David Stone, Alexandria, Virginia, Paul E. Parrish, HOLLAND &

KNIGHT, L.L.P., Tampa, Florida, for Appellees. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Kimberly Gottlieb (formerly Kimberly Akers) appeals district court

orders granting judgment to Bowl America, Inc. and two of its

employee benefit plans* on various claims arising out of Gottlieb’s

employment with Bowl America. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

Gottlieb began working for Bowl America in 1976, and she was

promoted to manager of the company’s Dranesville, Virginia bowling

center in July 1996. In November 1996, Gottlieb injured her back at

work; she reaggravated that injury in December 1997. Between

December 1997 and August 1998, Gottlieb took extensive leave for

her medical condition, working a reduced schedule or not at all. In

August 1998, following an extended absence for surgery, Gottlieb

returned to work as manager of Bowl America’s Chantilly, Virginia

bowling center. 

In October 1998, Gottlieb reinjured her back and informed Bowl

America that she needed to take some time off. Bowl America

granted this request but informed Gottlieb’s attorney that the company would have to fill Gottlieb’s position at the Chantilly center.

However, Bowl America further informed Gottlieb’s attorney that

"[a]s soon as Ms. [Gottlieb] is able to return to work, we will be prepared to meet with you to discuss an appropriate position and necessary accommodations for your client." J.A. 584 85. Gottlieb

subsequently notified Bowl America that her doctor had authorized

her to return to work on October 26, but she requested permission to

take vacation time through November 8. Although Bowl America

*We refer to Bowl America and the employee benefit plans collectively as "Appellees." 

2 GOTTLIEB v. BOWL AMERICA, INC.
granted Gottlieb’s request and paid her for her vacation time, Gottlieb

never attempted to return to work at Bowl America. Gottlieb accepted

a position with another company soon after completing her vacation.

Gottlieb subsequently filed this action alleging, inter alia, that

Bowl America (1) violated her rights under the Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), see 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-54 (West 1999

& Supp. 2003); (2) discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), see 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112

(West 1995); and (3) retaliated against her for reporting alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor, in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a) (West 2003). Gottlieb later amended her complaint to allege violations of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), see 29 U.S.C.A.

§§ 1001-1461 (West 1999 & Supp. 2003), in connection with unpaid

benefits allegedly owed to her under Bowl America’s employee benefit plans. 

The district court granted summary judgment to Bowl America on

Gottlieb’s FMLA, ADA, and Title VII claims. The court held that

Bowl America had met its obligations under the FMLA by allowing

Gottlieb to take the leave she requested and by restoring her to an

equivalent position upon her return to work in August 1998. Further,

the court determined that Gottlieb was not terminated following her

injury in October 1998 but instead abandoned her employment with

Bowl America. The court also rejected Gottlieb’s ADA claim because

Bowl America provided her with every accommodation she requested

and did not terminate her or otherwise discriminate against her.

Lastly, the district court rejected Gottlieb’s Title VII claim, finding

that there was no evidence that Bowl America retaliated against her

for complaining about sexual harassment by her supervisor. 

Following a bench trial on Gottlieb’s ERISA claims, the district

court entered judgment in favor of Appellees on Gottlieb’s claims

relating to lack of notice and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that

Appellees provided all required disclosures to Gottlieb and did not

breach any duty in responding to her claim for benefits. After staying

Gottlieb’s claim for unpaid benefits pending her exhaustion of administrative remedies, the district court granted summary judgment to

Appellees on that claim, concluding that Gottlieb was not entitled to

GOTTLIEB v. BOWL AMERICA, INC. 3
benefits for the relevant years because she had not worked the minimum number of hours required for eligibility.

II.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district

court correctly decided the issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Akers v. Bowl America, Inc.,

No. 00-1342-A (E.D. Va. June 12, 2001); Akers v. Bowl America,

Inc., No. 00-1342-A (E.D. Va. July 3, 2001); Akers v. Bowl America,

Inc., No. 00-1342-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2003).

AFFIRMED

4 GOTTLIEB v. BOWL AMERICA, INC.