Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-25-2007
O'Reilly v. Rutgers Univ
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1522
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"O'Reilly v. Rutgers Univ" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1220.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1220
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 06-1522
LAURIE O'REILLY,
Appellant
v.
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
On Appeal From The United States District Court
District of New Jersey
District Judge: Hon. Faith S. Hochberg
D.C. No. 04-cv-05787
ARGUED
April 19, 2007
Before: MCKEE, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and MICHEL,* Chief Circuit Judge.
(Filed: April 25, 2007)
OPINION
Stephen E. Klausner, Esq. (Argued)
Klausner & Hunter
63 East High Street
P.O. Box 1012
Somerville, NJ 08876
Attorney for Appellant
*
The Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
Aron M. Schwartz, Esq. (Argued)
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis
P.O. Box 5600
Metro Corporate Campus One
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Attorney for Appellee
Ann E. Reesman, Esq.
McGuiness, Norris & Williams
1015 15 th Street, N.W.
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20005
Attorney for Amicus-appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKee, Circuit Judge
Laurie O’Reilly appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this
action that she filed under the Family Medical Leave Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 2601 et. seq. We
will affirm.
Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need
not repeat the facts or procedural history. O’Reilly claims the District Court erred in
dismissing the complaint O’Reilly filed in which she claimed that Rutgers’ insistence on
her filing the required Health Care Provider form with a supervisor rather than with a
medical professional violated both the FMLA and her right to privacy. The pertinent facts
are not disputed.
2
In its thorough and well reasoned Opinion dated January 19, 2006, the District
Court explained why Rutgers was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the
undisputed facts. We can add little to that court’s analysis and discussion. Accordingly,
we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the aforementioned Opinion of the
District Court.
3