Williams v. Cintas Corp. , 169 F. App'x 180 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 21, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10976
Summary Calendar
YOLANDA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CINTAS CORPORATION; EXPECT FIRST AID CORPORATION,
A Division of Cintas Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-668
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In November 2000, Yolanda Williams (“Plaintiff”) executed an
employment agreement with Cintas Corporation and Expect First Aid
Corporation (“Defendants”) which contained a compulsory
arbitration clause requiring all disputes regarding the
employment to be submitted to binding arbitration. In March
2003, Plaintiff initiated her first lawsuit against Defendants
asserting claims for racial discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendants moved to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-10976
-2-
compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit in April 2003, and in
June 2003, the district court entered an order granting
Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The parties proceeded
to arbitration under the supervision of the American Arbitration
Association. In January 2005, the arbitrator issued his award
denying all of Plaintiff’s requested relief. In March 2005, the
arbitrator denied Plaintiff’s request for modification of the
arbitrator’s award. In April 2005, Plaintiff initiated her
second lawsuit against Defendants, once again claiming
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §
1981. On motion of Defendants, the district court dismissed
Plaintiff’s second complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff
appealed to this Court.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,
the reply brief and relevant portions of the record itself. For
the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum
opinion and order filed July 15, 2005, we affirm the final
judgment entered by the district court on July 25, 2005.
AFFIRMED.