Maureen Edwards v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, No. 08-2345 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2345 MAUREEN L. EDWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-01250-WDQ) Submitted: July 9, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce E. Smithey, RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Deborah K. St. Lawrence, BROWN & SHEEHAN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maureen L. Edwards appeals the district court s order dismissing Employee her complaint, Retirement Income which alleged Security Act violation ( ERISA ) of and the state employment law, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the parties briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we reasons stated by the district court. affirm primarily for the See Edwards v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 1:08-cv-01250-WDQ (D. Md. Sept. 18 & Nov. 20, 2008). We district briefly claim address failed to Edwards address her assertion that the contention that her exhaustion of remedies was not required regarding her claim of wrongful discharge. Even assuming that an ERISA wrongful discharge claim does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies, Edwards complaint does not raise this claim. Instead, in Edwards ERISA claim in her complaint, she averred only that GSK interfered with her right to retirement and other severance benefits. Wrongful discharge was raised only as a violation of state law. Moreover, we find the claim of wrongful termination that Edwards now attempts to assert would have been insufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007) (holding that to survive a motion to dismiss, [f]actual 2 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and the complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face ). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.