Elmer Webb v. Pulitzer Publishing

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: July 10, 1997
• Docket: 97-1014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1014 ___________

Elmer J. Webb, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Pulitzer Publishing Company, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: June 24, 1997

Filed: July 10, 1997 ___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM. After remand, Elmer J. Webb, Jr., appeals from the district court's1 entry of judgment for defendant following a bench trial in his employment discrimination action. Because Webb has not provided a transcript of the trial proceedings, we cannot review the district court’s factual findings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b);

1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Meroney v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters

-2- & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071 (1988).

Accepting the district court's factual findings as true, we agree that judgment for defendant was proper. See Davenport v. Riverview Gardens Sch. Dist., 30 F.3d 940, 945 (8th Cir. 1994) (employer’s identification of alleged rule infractions sufficiently set forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiff's termination); cf. Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 38 F.3d 968, 971-72 (8th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment proper where plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that proffered reason was pretextual or that discriminatory motive was more likely).

Webb incorrectly argues that he was entitled to a jury trial. His Title VII claim arose before the November 21, 1991 effective date of the 1991 Civil Rights Act, and the 1991 Act is not retroactive. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280-86 (1994); Wright v. General Dynamics Corp., 23 F.3d 1478, 1479 (8th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-3-