Alderdice v. American Health Holding, Inc.

Type

Concurrence

Author

Ronald Lee Gilman

Filed

June 14, 2002

Case

Alderdice v. American Health Holding, Inc.

Case status

Decided

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

GILMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Sheryl Alderdice faded to present a genuine issue of material fact with respect to her Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act claims. But I disagree with the affirmance of summary judgment for American Health Holding, Inc. on Alderdice’s Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim. In my view, Alderdice’s evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, would permit a jury to rule in her favor on the ERISA claim. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion to the contrary. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering such a motion, the court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). This standard requires us to deny summary judgment where reasonable minds might disagree as to which of two competing fac…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.