Case Name: Theresa A. GODFREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA PACIFIC RESINS, INC., a foreign corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific, Inc. Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-15
Citations: 146 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 05-11782; D.C. Docket No. 03-00435-CV-CAR-5
Parties: Theresa A. GODFREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA PACIFIC RESINS, INC., a foreign corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific, Inc. Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
Theresa A. GODFREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA PACIFIC RESINS, INC., a foreign corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific, Inc. Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-11782.
D.C. Docket No. 03-00435-CV-CAR-5.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 15, 2005.
Jody D. Peterman, Terry & Peterman, LLP, Valdosta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alston D. Correll, III, Rebecca Lyn Williams, Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Non-Argument Calendar

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Theresa Godfrey sued Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. ("GP Resins") in the Superior Court of Dooly County, Georgia, for wrongful termination. Her complaint essentially alleged that she was fired in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. GP Resins removed the case to the federal district court based on the federal nature of Godfrey's retaliation and sexual harassment claims. Godfrey did not move to remand back to state court.
After discovery, GP Resins moved for summary judgment on Godfrey's claims, asserting that the record conclusively established that she had been terminated because she tested positive for drugs when GP Resins conducted a plant wide drug test. Godfrey's response to the motion for summary judgment asserted for the first time that she was not stating a claim under Title VII, but for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. She argues on appeal that because she was not making a Title VII claim, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. She maintains that instead of granting summary judgment, the district court should have denied the motion and sua sponte remanded the case to state court. We find no merit in these arguments.
AFFIRMED.