Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Eighth Circuit

Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

18 F. App'x 455

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided September 12, 2001·No. 00-3179·Unpublished

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.

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

Pincite

18 F. App'x 455 (Byers v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related