Crystalline S. Bailey v. Anchor Packaging, Etc.
This text of 216 F.3d 720 (Crystalline S. Bailey v. Anchor Packaging, Etc.) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff Crystalline S. Bailey appeals the district court’s 2 grant of summary judgment for defendant Anchor Packaging on plaintiffs employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the matter de novo and conclude that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to Bailey, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Treanor v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 200 F.3d 570, 573 (8th Cir.2000). The district court correctly ruled that defendant took prompt and appropriate remedial action after plaintiff complained that a co-worker had sexually harassed her. See Sens a v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 967 (8th Cir.1999).
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
. The Honorable Heniy Woods, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
216 F.3d 720, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15102, 84 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1667, 2000 WL 862536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystalline-s-bailey-v-anchor-packaging-etc-ca8-2000.