Sweeney v. Director
Sweeney v. Director
Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-2161
GLADYS SWEENEY,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Marcia J. Cleveland on brief for petitioner. Richard F. van Antwerp, Thomas R. Kelly and Robinson, Kriger, McCallum on brief for respondent Bath Iron Works Corporation. Stephen Hessert , Elizabeth M. Brogan and Norman, Hanson & DeTroy on brief for respondents, Bath Iron Works Corporation and Commercial Union Insurance Company. Nelson J. Larkins and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios , on brief for respondents Bath Iron Works Corporation and Birmingham Fire Insurance Company.
August 22, 1997
Per Curiam . Upon careful review of the briefs and record,
we conclude that the administrative law judge correctly
determined that during the relevant period petitioner was not
engaged in "maritime employment" covered under the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,
33 U.S.C. S 902(3). That
determination is not undermined by the fact that petitioner
cleaned offices occupied by persons who may have been engaged
in "maritime employment" covered under the Act. Petitioner's
own duties did not have the requisite maritime characteristics.
See Graziano v. General Dynamics Corp. ,
663 F.2d 340, 343(1st
Cir. 1981); Dravo Corp. v. Banks,
567 F.2d 593, 595 (3rd Cir.
1977).
Petitioner's additional arguments regarding her former
status and gender bias are meritless.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished