Nichols v. Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.

Eighth Circuit

Nichols v. Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.

32 F. App'x 787

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 2002

Docket01-3666

StatusUnpublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 787 (Nichols v. Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.) 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

Nichols v. Detroit Tool Metal Products Co., 32 F. App'x 787 (8th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Otis Nichols, Jr., appeals from the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to his employer, Detroit Tool Metal Products Co. (Detroit Tool), in his action asserting claims under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Reviewing de novo, see Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999), and analyzing the Title VII and MHRA claims together, see Gillming v. Simmons Indus., 91 F.3d 1168, 1171 n. 2 (8th Cir.1996), we affirm.

Mr. Nichols, an African-American, failed to establish a hostile-work-environment claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (requiring “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). Although he maintained that a coworker used racially offensive language in his presence, he indicated that when he complained to Detroit Tool, the company confronted and warned the coworker, and he did not allege that the coworker continued to use the offensive language. See Carter, 173 F.3d at 700 (plaintiff claiming harassment by non-supervisor must establish, in part, that harassment affected term, condition, or privilege of employment, and that employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action).

Assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Nichols made a prima facie case of disparate treatment with respect to Detroit Tool’s not granting him a pay increase when it granted one to similarly situated white employees, we conclude that Detroit Tool — which produced evidence that it had brought the discrepancy to Mr. Nichols’s attention upon discovering it, and had voluntarily given him backpay — provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, and that Nichols failed to show these were pretextual. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (burden-shifting analysis).

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

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Otis Nichols, Jr., appeals from the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to his employer, Detroit Tool Metal Products Co. (Detroit Tool), in his action asserting claims under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Reviewing de novo, see Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999), and analyzing the Title VII and MHRA claims together, see Gillming v. Simmons Indus., 91 F.3d 1168, 1171 n. 2 (8th Cir.1996), we affirm.

Mr. Nichols, an African-American, failed to establish a hostile-work-environment claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (requiring “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). Although he maintained that a coworker used racially offensive language in his presence, he indicated that when he complained to Detroit Tool, the company confronted and warned the coworker, and he did not allege that the coworker continued to use the offensive language. See Carter, 173 F.3d at 700 (plaintiff claiming harassment by non-supervisor must establish, in part, that harassment affected term, condition, or privilege of employment, and that employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action).

Assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Nichols made a prima facie case of disparate treatment with respect to Detroit Tool’s not granting him a pay increase when it granted one to similarly situated white employees, we conclude that Detroit Tool — which produced evidence that it had brought the discrepancy to Mr. Nichols’s attention upon discovering it, and had voluntarily given him backpay — provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, and that Nichols failed to show these were pretextual. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (burden-shifting analysis).

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

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-detroit-tool-metal-products-co-ca8-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack