Elmiry v. Wachovia Corp., 020711 FED3, 08-3065
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||LAILA ELMIRY, Appellant v. WACHOVIA CORPORATION; WACHOVIA BANK; WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC; WACHOVIA SECURITIES FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC; DIANE VAGILE; RONALD CACHOEIRA|
|Judge Panel:||Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 07, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 3, 2011.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 2:04-cv-03621) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Laila Elmiry, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court's November 16, 2007 order and May 12, 2008 judgment, which collectively dismissed or denied each of her claims in this employment discrimination case. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Because we write for the parties, who are familiar with the background of this case, we discuss that background only briefly here. In November 2004, Elmiry, a Coptic Christian woman who was born in Egypt and came to the United States in 1978, filed a counseled complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia Bank, Wachovia Securities, LLC, and Wachovia Securities Financial Network, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Wachovia"). Elmiry, who had worked for Wachovia and its predecessor companies for at least 11 years prior to her termination in 2003, alleged discrimination, creation of a hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, "common law" emotional distress, and breach of contract. Wachovia removed the case to the District Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In October 2005, Elmiry, represented by new counsel, filed an amended complaint in the District Court. That pleading, which named two Wachovia employees as additional defendants, alleged that Wachovia and the additional defendants had subjected Elmiry to a hostile work environment and discriminated against her on the basis of her national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, and age, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.1
After the close of discovery, Wachovia moved for summary judgment. On November 16, 2007, the District Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. In doing so, the court first dismissed the claims against the two individual defendants without prejudice, concluding that Elmiry had failed to serve them within the time prescribed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).2 The court then turned to the merits of Elmiry's claims against Wachovia. The court, applying the burden-shifting framework set forth...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP