Dennis High v. University of Minnesota

Eighth Circuit

Dennis High v. University of Minnesota

236 F.3d 909, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33142, 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 509, 2000 WL 1858959

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2000

Docket00-1381

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 236 F.3d 909 (Dennis High v. University of Minnesota) 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

Dennis High v. University of Minnesota, 236 F.3d 909, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33142, 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 509, 2000 WL 1858959 (8th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dennis High, an African-American, was hired by the University of Minnesota in 1980 to work at the University Hospitals and Clinics. High worked in various capacities for the University, including work as a Protective Service Officer (PSO). In his position as a PSO, High believed he was subjected to a number of discriminatory actions, including being passed over for a promotion.

On March 12, 1998, High commenced a lawsuit against the University, alleging race discrimination for failure to promote, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on all three claims, and High appealed the race discrimination claim. On the race discrimination claim, the district court found that the University articulated a non-discriminatory reason for not promoting High and that he failed to show the reason was pretextual.

On appeal, the University urges that the district court’s judgment be affirmed on the merits. It also argues that High’s claim is time barred by Title VII’s statute of limitations. 1 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). High’s response is that his claim is not barred because his failure to promote claim falls under the continuing violations doctrine. This court has never applied the continuing violations doctrine to a discrete act, such as failure to promote, and we decline to do so now. See Stolzenburg v. Ford Motor Co., 143 F.3d 402, 405 (8th Cir.1998); Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 362 (8th Cir.1997). With respect to the merits of High’s claim, we affirm the judgment of dismissal based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The district court did not address the statute of limitations issue. Instead, the district court dismissed High's claim on the merits and assumed arguendo that the discriminatory conduct was not barred by Title VII's statute of limitations.

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

PER CURIAM.

Dennis High, an African-American, was hired by the University of Minnesota in 1980 to work at the University Hospitals and Clinics. High worked in various capacities for the University, including work as a Protective Service Officer (PSO). In his position as a PSO, High believed he was subjected to a number of discriminatory actions, including being passed over for a promotion.

On March 12, 1998, High commenced a lawsuit against the University, alleging race discrimination for failure to promote, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on all three claims, and High appealed the race discrimination claim. On the race discrimination claim, the district court found that the University articulated a non-discriminatory reason for not promoting High and that he failed to show the reason was pretextual.

On appeal, the University urges that the district court’s judgment be affirmed on the merits. It also argues that High’s claim is time barred by Title VII’s statute of limitations. 1 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). High’s response is that his claim is not barred because his failure to promote claim falls under the continuing violations doctrine. This court has never applied the continuing violations doctrine to a discrete act, such as failure to promote, and we decline to do so now. See Stolzenburg v. Ford Motor Co., 143 F.3d 402, 405 (8th Cir.1998); Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 362 (8th Cir.1997). With respect to the merits of High’s claim, we affirm the judgment of dismissal based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The district court did not address the statute of limitations issue. Instead, the district court dismissed High's claim on the merits and assumed arguendo that the discriminatory conduct was not barred by Title VII's statute of limitations.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F.3d 909, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33142, 90 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 509, 2000 WL 1858959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-high-v-university-of-minnesota-ca8-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack