Tab Evans v. Blanton Construction Co.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 2019
Docket18-2564
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tab Evans v. Blanton Construction Co. (Tab Evans v. Blanton Construction 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
Tab Evans v. Blanton Construction Co., (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2564 ___________________________

Tab Quentin Evans

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Blanton Construction Co.; St. Louis Carpenters District Council; St. Louis C.J.A.P., Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship Program; U.B.C. -International, United Brotherhood of Carpenters; D.O.L.-E.T.A., Employment and Training Administration; D.O.L.-B.A.T.-St. Louis, Bureau of Apprenticeship & Training; D.O.L.-O.A., Office of Apprenticeship; St. Louis D.O.L.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Eastern Division ____________

Submitted: May 2, 2019 Filed: May 17, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before ERICKSON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. In this action involving claims of employment discrimination and retaliation, Tab Evans appeals after the district court1 dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the dismissal was proper, as we agree with the district court that Evans’s factual allegations did not plausibly give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face; conclusory allegations are not entitled to be assumed true); Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011, 1019 (8th Cir. 2011) (to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff must show, inter alia, circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination); Wilkie v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 638 F.3d 944, 955 (8th Cir. 2011) (to establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that a materially adverse action was causally linked to protected conduct); see also Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (grant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Shirley Padmore Mensah, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Wilkie v. Department of Health and Human Services
638 F.3d 944 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc.
641 F.3d 1011 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
Arlena Kelly v. City of Omaha
813 F.3d 1070 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tab Evans v. Blanton Construction Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tab-evans-v-blanton-construction-co-ca8-2019.