Michael Hale, Jr. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. , 623 F. App'x 828 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-1393
    ___________________________
    Michael L. Hale, Jr.
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: November 30, 2015
    Filed: December 4, 2015
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Michael Hale, a former employee of Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., appeals
    from the final judgment entered after the district court1 adversely granted summary
    1
    The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    judgment on his Title VII claims. He also challenges the district court’s denial of a
    motion he filed related to a discovery dispute; his motion sought various sanctions
    including a finding of civil contempt.
    We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    the discovery-related motion. See Holmes v. Trinity Health, 
    729 F.3d 817
    , 820-21
    (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for denial of discovery sanctions); Indep. Fed. of
    Flight Attendants v. Cooper, 
    134 F.3d 917
    , 920 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review
    for denial of contempt order). We further conclude, upon de novo review, that the
    district court’s summary judgment decision was proper. See Brooks v. Roy, 
    776 F.3d 957
    , 959-60 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment decision);
    Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 
    656 F.3d 782
    , 796-97 (8th Cir. 2011) (for
    purposes of discrimination claim based on disparate-treatment theory, compared
    employees must be similarly situated in all relevant respects); Watson v. CEVA
    Logistics U.S., Inc., 
    619 F.3d 936
    , 942-43 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing hostile-work-
    environment claims); Logan v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., 
    416 F.3d 877
    , 881 (8th Cir.
    2005) (discussing retaliation claims); see also Edmund v. MidAmerican Energy Co.,
    
    299 F.3d 679
    , 685-86 (8th Cir. 2002) (federal court does not sit as super personnel
    department reviewing wisdom or fairness of business judgments made by employers,
    except to extent those judgments involve intentional discrimination).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-