Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/231/202/469294/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:59:08+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff-Appellant originally filed suit in state court, alleging that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),1 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"),2 the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("TCHRA"),3 and the Texas Workers' Compensation Act ("TWCA").4 After the case was removed to federal district court, Dolese obtained a partial remand as to the TWCA claim. He amended his state court complaint to include a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"),5 which was then removed to federal court and consolidated with his ADA claim (Dolese withdrew his TCHRA and ADEA claims). He seeks reversal of the district court's denial of his motion for remand. Dolese also asks us to reverse the dismissal of his FMLA claim and the grant of summary judgment in Office Depot's favoron the ADA claims. We refuse to overturn the considered judgment of the district court.
Finally, summary judgment was appropriate on Dolese's ADA claims. He was not "disabled" under the meaning of the statute,15 and can not therefore establish the requisite prima facie case.16 In light of the preceding, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
See 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 21.001 et seq.
See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 451.001.
See 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163-66 (1997).
See Agrilectric Power Partners, Ltd. v. Energy Gulf States, Inc., 207 F.3d 301, 304 n.7 (5th Cir. 2000).
See 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2); 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(a) (1).
The provision stipulates: "An employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the FMLA." 29 C.F.R. § 825.700(a).
See Covey v. Methodist Hosp. of Dyersburg, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 2d 965, 971-72 (W.D. Tenn. 1999); Hite v. Biomet, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1018 (N.D. Ind. 1999); Rich v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 767, 773-74 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988); Rich, 921 F. Supp. at 773-74; see also McGregor v. Autozone, Inc., 180 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 1999).
See Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs, Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 608 (6th Cir. 1998).
See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516, 521-23 (1999); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
See Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Inc., 84 F.3d 758, 763 (5th Cir. 1996).

References: § 12101
 § 621
 § 21
 § 451
 § 2601
 § 1441
 § 1367
 § 1367
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2611
 § 825
 § 825
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12102
 v. 
 v. 
 v.