Opinion
No. 10-7043.
Filed On: September 2, 2010.
BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly determined that appellant is unable to demonstrate an essential element of her claim. See Md. Code Ann., Lab. Empl. § 9-1105(a). The arbitral finding that appellant was terminated, at least in part, for filing a false report precludes her from demonstrating that she was fired solely in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Ford v. Rigidply Rafters, 999 F. Supp. 647, 650 (D. Md. 1998) (followingKern v. South Baltimore Gen. Hosp., 504 A.2d 1154, 1157 (Md. 1986)); Ewing v. Koppers Co., 537 A.2d 1173, 1178 (Md. 1988). Although appellant contends that she was not a party to the prior arbitration, she was in privity with the union that pursued the grievance on her behalf. See generally Caldor v. Bowden, 625 A.2d 959, 971 (Md. 1993).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.