Bell v. American Greetings Corp.

Eighth Circuit

Bell v. American Greetings Corp.

279 F. App'x 415

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2008

DocketNos. 07-2565, 07-2598

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 F. App'x 415 (Bell v. American Greetings Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. American Greetings Corp., 279 F. App'x 415 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appellants were among over 100 employees of appellee American Greetings Corporation who were fired after it was discovered that they had committed unemployment fraud. Appellants challenge the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment on their age and race discrimination claims brought under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and its denial of their motion for reconsideration. On cross appeal American Greetings challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for sanctions.

After reviewing the record de novo, with the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to appellants, Doe v. Dep’t of Vets. Affairs, 519 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that the district court did not err in granting American Greetings’s motion for summary judgment, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration. As noted by the district court, there was no evidence that any similarly situated white employee or employee under the age of 40 who engaged in unemployment fraud was treated differently and, in fact, every employee who was known to have committed unemployment fraud during the investigation period was fired for that fraud. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying American Greetings’s motion for sanctions, see United States v. Pugh, 445 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appellants were among over 100 employees of appellee American Greetings Corporation who were fired after it was discovered that they had committed unemployment fraud. Appellants challenge the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment on their age and race discrimination claims brought under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and its denial of their motion for reconsideration. On cross appeal American Greetings challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for sanctions.

After reviewing the record de novo, with the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to appellants, Doe v. Dep’t of Vets. Affairs, 519 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that the district court did not err in granting American Greetings’s motion for summary judgment, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration. As noted by the district court, there was no evidence that any similarly situated white employee or employee under the age of 40 who engaged in unemployment fraud was treated differently and, in fact, every employee who was known to have committed unemployment fraud during the investigation period was fired for that fraud. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying American Greetings’s motion for sanctions, see United States v. Pugh, 445 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F. App'x 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-american-greetings-corp-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack