Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

January 15, 2016, Decided

No. 15-11945 Non-Argument Calendar

Opinion

 [*583]  PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Olivia Jiheekim Mack ("Mack") and David Mack, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court's dismissal of Mack's amended complaint against Mack's employer, Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta"), and against Sedgewick Claims Management Services, Inc. ("Sedgewick"). Plaintiffs also appeal the district court's grant of Defendants' motions for sanctions and denial of Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

This case arises out of the denial of Mack's application for short-term disability insurance ("STDI") benefits. Mack declined SDTI [**2]  benefits when she was first hired as a Delta flight attendant in 2007. When Mack later applied for SDTI benefits in October 2008, she was denied coverage because she was pregnant. Unable to qualify for SDTI benefits, Mack continued to work as a flight attendant during her pregnancy. Mack alleges that, as a result of her working on long international flights, she suffered from preeclampsia and high blood pressure -- putting both her and her unborn baby's health at risk.

Mack filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that she was discriminated against in violation of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). After efforts to obtain a settlement failed, the EEOC issued Mack a right-to-sue notice.

On 9 April 2013, Mack filed this civil action against Delta and Sedgewick, the administrator of Delta's STDI program. In her initial complaint, Mack purported to assert against Defendants claims for violations of Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, and several state-law claims.

The district court dismissed as untimely the employment discrimination claims arising [**3]  from Mack's EEOC charge and dismissed without prejudice Mack's remaining state-law claims. The district court  [*584]  also denied as futile Mack's four motions to amend the complaint but granted her leave to file an amended complaint that complied with federal pleading requirements.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

639 Fed. Appx. 582 *; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 706 **

OLIVIA JIHEEKIM MACK, DAVID KERRY MACK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DELTA AIR LINES, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendants - Appellees.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-01162-LMM.

Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188723 (N.D. Ga., Mar. 30, 2015)Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199036 (N.D. Ga., June 11, 2014)Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198758 (N.D. Ga., Sept. 24, 2014)Mack v. Mack, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198564 (N.D. Ga., May 14, 2014)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

notice, district court, amended complaint, benefits, right-to-sue, retaliation, sanctions

Labor & Employment Law, Civil Actions, Exhaustion of Remedies, Filing of Charges, Right to Sue Letters, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Retaliation, Elements, Adverse Employment Actions, Causation, Torts, Public Entity Liability, Immunities, Absolute Immunity, Business & Corporate Compliance, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Authorities & Powers, Investigative Authority, Abuse of Discretion, Sanctions, Baseless Filings, Vexatious Litigants, Bad Faith Motions