Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Eighth Circuit

Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

18 F. App'x 455

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 2001

Docket00-3179

StatusUnpublished

This text of 18 F. App'x 455 (Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.) 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

Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 18 F. App'x 455 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Byers appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judg- *456 merit in her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employment discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Int’l, Inc., 250 F.3d 587, 595 (8th Cir.2001) (de novo standard of review), we affirm.

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining Byers’s case was ripe for summary judgment, see Stanback v. Best. Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 910-11 (8th Cir.1999); that Byers failed to establish she had a disability, as that term is defined under the ADA, see Gutridge v. Clure, 153 F.3d 898, 900 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1113, 119 S.Ct. 1758, 143 L.Ed.2d 790 (1999); and that the record did not support an ADA retaliation claim, see Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Byers appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judg- *456 merit in her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employment discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Int’l, Inc., 250 F.3d 587, 595 (8th Cir.2001) (de novo standard of review), we affirm.

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining Byers’s case was ripe for summary judgment, see Stanback v. Best. Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 910-11 (8th Cir.1999); that Byers failed to establish she had a disability, as that term is defined under the ADA, see Gutridge v. Clure, 153 F.3d 898, 900 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1113, 119 S.Ct. 1758, 143 L.Ed.2d 790 (1999); and that the record did not support an ADA retaliation claim, see Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. App'x 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byers-v-southwestern-bell-telephone-co-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack