Blakley v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., No. 10-2906 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant filed suit against her former employer, alleging that it wrongfully denied (or delayed) her promotion and subsequently, wrongfully terminated her. Appellant challenged four of the district court's interlocutory orders, contended that the district court erred by awarding costs to the employer, and asserted that the district court erroneously dismissed some of her claims and erroneously granted summary judgment to the employer on her remaining claims. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion where it repeatedly attempted to accommodate appellant despite her attorney's repeated failures to comply with court orders and court-imposed deadlines. The court also held that appellant had not shown that the district court abused its discretion by awarding costs to the employer. The court further held that the district court did not err by dismissing appellant's duplicative claims and affirmed the district court's dismissal of her claim under the Ledbetter Act, which she attempted to add without permission from the employer or leave from the court. The court finally held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the hostile work environment claim and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2615, claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - employment discrimination. Certain interlocutory orders concerning discovery, sanctions and an extension of time were not abuses of the trial court's discretion; award of costs was not an abuse of discretion; district court did not err in dismissing claims for disability and gender discrimination for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; state-law negligence claims were properly dismissed; district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint to state a Ledbetter Act claim; no error in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim as she failed to establish a prima facie case of race-based discrimination; FMLA claims rejected.
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.