Olynyk v. CRA Occupational, No. 05-4066 (6th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0903n.06 Filed: December 18, 2006 Nos. 05-4064/05-4065/05-4066 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MARYANNE OLYNYK, Plaintiff-Appellant, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO v. CRA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, INC., and DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP., OPINION Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ Before: DAUGHTREY and MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and REEVES, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. Maryanne Olynyk brought this action against the Defendants-Appellees, CRA Occupational Health, Inc. and DaimlerChrysler Corp., for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with the Defendants termination of her employment at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio. The district court granted the Defendants motion for summary judgment because Olynyk failed to file a valid charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the statutory period. * The Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. -1- After a careful review of the record, the parties briefs and the applicable law, we are convinced that the district court correctly determined that Olynyk s intake questionnaire could not be construed as a valid charge within the meaning of Title VII because Olynyk did not manifest her intent to activate the machinery of Title VII. Thus, we find that the district court properly concluded that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Olynyk s claims and decline to reach the remaining issues raised by the parties on appeal and cross-appeal. Because the district court s opinion accurately sets out the law governing this issue and clearly states the reasons for its conclusion, issuance of a more lengthy opinion in this case would not serve a useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
