Donnell W. Durley v. Anheuser-Busch

Eighth Circuit

Donnell W. Durley v. Anheuser-Busch

56 F. App'x 740

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2002

Docket02-2517

StatusUnpublished

This text of 56 F. App'x 740 (Donnell W. Durley v. Anheuser-Busch) 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

Donnell W. Durley v. Anheuser-Busch, 56 F. App'x 740 (8th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Donnell W. Durley was discharged from his employment with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Anheuser-Busch), after he incurred three unexcused absences following a history of discipline for unexcused absences. Durley brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and Missouri law, claiming that he had been retaliated against for filing a prior race-discrimination lawsuit and discriminated against and harassed because of his age. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to Anheuser-Busch, and Durley appealed. After careful de novo review of the record, see Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Durley abandoned his age-discrimination claims by failing to raise them in his appellate brief. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Further, even assuming Durley established a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed to create a jury issue on whether Anheuser-Busch’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge was merely a pretext. See Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707, 714 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1077, 121 S.Ct. 773, 148 L.Ed.2d 672 (2001).

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

1

. The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Donnell W. Durley was discharged from his employment with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Anheuser-Busch), after he incurred three unexcused absences following a history of discipline for unexcused absences. Durley brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and Missouri law, claiming that he had been retaliated against for filing a prior race-discrimination lawsuit and discriminated against and harassed because of his age. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to Anheuser-Busch, and Durley appealed. After careful de novo review of the record, see Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Durley abandoned his age-discrimination claims by failing to raise them in his appellate brief. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Further, even assuming Durley established a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed to create a jury issue on whether Anheuser-Busch’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge was merely a pretext. See Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707, 714 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1077, 121 S.Ct. 773, 148 L.Ed.2d 672 (2001).

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

1

. The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. App'x 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnell-w-durley-v-anheuser-busch-ca8-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack