Doris Scott v. John E. Potter

134 F. App'x 989
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 2005
Docket04-2133
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 F. App'x 989 (Doris Scott v. John E. Potter) 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
Doris Scott v. John E. Potter, 134 F. App'x 989 (8th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Doris Scott appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action against Postmaster General John Potter (hereinafter United States Postal Service (“USPS”)). We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Spangler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 278 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir.2002).

Scott’s sex discrimination claim was properly dismissed because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for that claim. See Miller v. Runyon, 32 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir.1994). As to Scott’s age and race discrimination claims, USPS proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting Scott — USPS had concluded from medical documentation provided by Scott’s treating physician that she could not meet the physical requirements of the job — and Scott failed to provide any evidence suggesting that the proffered rationale was a pretext for discrimination. See Erenberg v. Methodist Hosp., 357 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir.2004). Furthermore, with regards to her race discrimination claim, Scott did not make out a prima facie case because the employee who was ultimately promoted was of the *990 same race. See Kenney v. Swift Transp., Inc., 347 F.3d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.2003).

We therefore affirm the district court.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Related

Barrella v. Village of Freeport
43 F. Supp. 3d 136 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Carroll v. City of Mount Vernon
707 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D. New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 F. App'x 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doris-scott-v-john-e-potter-ca8-2005.