Abe Brian Evans v. Siegel-Robert, Inc. , 22 F. App'x 688 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2152
    ___________
    Abe Brian Evans,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Siegel-Robert, Inc., doing business as *
    Plastene Supply Company,                *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 5, 2001
    Filed: December 10, 2001
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Abe Brian Evans, a former maintenance employee of Siegel-Robert’s Plastene
    Supply Company division, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
    judgment in his race discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, 
    42 U.S.C. § 1981
    , and the Missouri Human Rights Act.
    Following de novo review of the record, see Whitley v. Peer Review Sys., Inc., 
    221 F.3d 1053
    , 1055 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    Human Resources Manager Barry Little called Evans--who monitored
    Plastene’s critical water supply during his shift--to his office on April 16, shortly after
    an incident involving the water supply. Although Evans maintained he had timely
    and correctly read the water gauges, Little decided to terminate Evans after the
    incident based on Evans’s readings, which Little believed to be falsified; on the
    recommendation of Evans’s supervisor, Gary Mercer; and on three previous warnings
    Evans had received concerning job performance. Although Evans asserts that
    genuine issues of material fact exist regarding his prior disciplinary record and the
    April 16 events, he did not meet his burden of producing evidence from which a jury
    could find that Siegel-Robert’s proferred reason for his termination was pretextual.
    See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 
    477 U.S. 317
    , 322-23 (1986).
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2152

Citation Numbers: 22 F. App'x 688

Judges: Hansen, Fagg, Beam

Filed Date: 12/10/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024