Shawn Mahler v. Schreiter Ready-Mix

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 11, 2022
Docket21-3823
StatusUnpublished

This text of Shawn Mahler v. Schreiter Ready-Mix (Shawn Mahler v. Schreiter Ready-Mix) 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
Shawn Mahler v. Schreiter Ready-Mix, (8th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3823 ___________________________

Shawn Mahler

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Schreiter Ready-Mix & Materials, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: June 28, 2022 Filed: July 11, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri resident Shawn Mahler appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment discrimination action against his employer,

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Schreiter Ready-Mix & Materials, Inc. (Schreiter). We affirm the grant of summary judgment. See Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 851 F.3d 810, 817 (8th Cir. 2017). Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Mahler failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies as to his hostile work environment claims, as he did not file his charge of discrimination within 300 days of his last day of work. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); AMTRAK v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 112, 122 (2002); Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet - Wilmington Corp, 894 F.3d 911, 920 (8th Cir. 2018); Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 823, 826 (8th Cir. 2009). While Mahler argues on appeal that Schreiter failed to preserve the exhaustion issue by not sufficiently pleading it, we conclude that Mahler waived this argument by not raising it below, see Wever v. Lincoln County, 388 F.3d 601, 608 (8th Cir. 2004), and that Mahler had sufficient notice of the issue, see First Union Nat’l Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 477 F.3d 616, 622 (8th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc.
578 F.3d 823 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
Nancy Wever v. James Carman
388 F.3d 601 (Eighth Circuit, 2004)
Mandy Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc.
851 F.3d 810 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet-Wilmington Corp
894 F.3d 911 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shawn Mahler v. Schreiter Ready-Mix, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shawn-mahler-v-schreiter-ready-mix-ca8-2022.