Siddiqua v. New York State Department of Health, 031616 FED2, 15-2702
|Party Name:||JESMAIN SIDDIQUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: MEREDITH A. MORIARITY (John J. Hoke, on the brief), Smith Hoke, PLLC, Albany, NY. FOR APPELLEES: KATE H. NEPVEU, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: Pierre N. Leval, Richard C. Wesley, Circuit Judges, Brenda K. Sannes, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||March 16, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of March, two thousand sixteen.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED.
Appellant Jesmain Siddiqua ("Siddiqua") appeals from the District Court's judgment dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In her complaint, Siddiqua alleges claims of interference and retaliation in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., against Appellee, her former employer, the New York State Department of Health (the "Department"). In its order dismissing Siddiqua's complaint, the District Court found that the present action was barred under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata because Siddiqua's FMLA claims had already been decided in the Department's favor in (1) a prior arbitration...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP