UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 98-10072
Summary Calendar
__________________
PEGGY A. CANFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORPORATION; DAN HAGLER, Registered Agent;
CHRISTIAN GRAS, President; JERRY MOTSINGER, Supervisor,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
(4:97-CV-736)
______________________________________________
July 28, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Peggy A. Canfield appeals from a summary judgment dismissing
various claims against appellees American Eurocopter Corp., Dan
Hagler, Christian Gras and Jerry Motsinger. On appeal Canfield
complains of the dismissal of her discrimination claims brought
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We affirm.
The record reveals that upon termination Canfield signed a
valid waiver and release of her Title VII claims as well as any
claims under the ADEA. The release, and her acknowledgment of
same, complied with the requirements of a release set out in the
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. §
626(f)(1). See Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 838,
841 (1998) (an employee cannot waive ADEA claims unless the waiver
meets requirements of OWBPA). Canfield presented no summary
judgment evidence to raise a genuine issue as to whether the
release was invalid due to fraud, malice, duress or material
mistake. Finally, the waiver is not infirm for any violations of
the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas, Tex.
Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590i § 15.01 (Vernon Supp. Pamph. 1998),
because Canfield did not present a health care liability claim nor
did she provide summary judgment evidence that any of the appellees
was a health care provider within the meaning of that statute.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2