Michael Gillis v. Crittenton , 35 F. App'x 421 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-3363
    ___________
    Michael Gillis,                       *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Western
    Crittenton, d/b/a Crittenton          * District of Missouri.
    Behavioral Center, a member of        *
    the Saint Luke's-Shawnee Mission      *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Health System,                        *
    *
    Appellee.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 13, 2002
    Filed: May 29, 2002
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and
    PRATT,1 District Judge.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    1
    The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
    Michael Gillis appeals the order of the district court2 granting summary
    judgment to Crittenton. Mr. Gillis served as a behavioral health technician at
    Crittendon, a residential behavioral health center for minor children. When Mr. Gillis
    was terminated from his employment, he sued Crittenton for sex discrimination,
    alleging that Crittenton treated him differently from the way that it treated similarly
    situated female employees. Reviewing de novo, Rheineck v. Hutchinson Technology,
    Inc., 
    261 F.3d 751
    , 755 (8th Cir. 2001), we affirm.
    Under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    , 802 (1973),
    Mr. Gillis was required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Assuming,
    without deciding, that he did so, Crittenton, in turn, was required to articulate a
    legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Mr. Gillis. See 
    id. at 802-04.
    Crittenton produced evidence that it terminated Mr. Gillis because of his
    excessive absenteeism. The burden then fell upon Mr. Gillis to show that the reason
    given by Crittenton was a pretext for discrimination. See 
    id. at 804-05.
    Mr. Gillis
    failed to satisfy this burden because the persons with whom he sought to compare
    himself were not similarly situated to him in all relevant respects. See Cronquist v.
    City of Minneapolis, 
    237 F.3d 920
    , 928 (8th Cir. 2001).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    2
    The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-3363

Citation Numbers: 35 F. App'x 421

Judges: Hansen, Arnold, Pratt

Filed Date: 5/29/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024