Nichols v. Detroit Tool Metal Products Co. , 32 F. App'x 787 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-3666
    ___________
    Otis Nichols, Jr.,                    *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the Western
    * District of Missouri.
    Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.,      *
    *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 28, 2002
    Filed: April 2, 2002
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Otis Nichols, Jr., appeals from the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment
    to his employer, Detroit Tool Metal Products Co. (Detroit Tool), in his action
    asserting claims under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).
    Reviewing de novo, see Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 
    173 F.3d 693
    , 700 (8th Cir. 1999),
    and analyzing the Title VII and MHRA claims together, see Gillming v. Simmons
    Indus., 
    91 F.3d 1168
    , 1171 n.2 (8th Cir. 1996), we affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Western District of Missouri.
    Mr. Nichols, an African-American, failed to establish a hostile-work-
    environment claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (requiring “specific facts showing that
    there is a genuine issue for trial”). Although he maintained that a coworker used
    racially offensive language in his presence, he indicated that when he complained to
    Detroit Tool, the company confronted and warned the coworker, and he did not allege
    that the coworker continued to use the offensive language. See 
    Carter, 173 F.3d at 700
    (plaintiff claiming harassment by non-supervisor must establish, in part, that
    harassment affected term, condition, or privilege of employment, and that employer
    knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take prompt and effective
    remedial action).
    Assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Nichols made a prima facie case of
    disparate treatment with respect to Detroit Tool’s not granting him a pay increase
    when it granted one to similarly situated white employees, we conclude that Detroit
    Tool--which produced evidence that it had brought the discrepancy to Mr. Nichols’s
    attention upon discovering it, and had voluntarily given him backpay--provided
    legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, and that Nichols failed to show
    these were pretextual. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    , 802-05
    (1973) (burden-shifting analysis).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-3666

Citation Numbers: 32 F. App'x 787

Judges: Wollman, Fagg, Arnold

Filed Date: 4/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024