Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Catherine ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DCFS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-2404.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 4, 2015.
    Filed: Feb. 25, 2015.
    Mary Catherine Anderson, North Little Rock, AR, pro se.
    Carmen M. Mosley-Sims, John Mark White, Arkansas Department of Human Services, Erasmo Reyes, DHS Office of Chief Counsel, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Mary Anderson appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in her action asserting claims under Title VII and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in its summary judgment decision. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042, 1046 (8th Cir.2011) (en banc) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment; for Title VII discrimination claim, ultimate burden falls on plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence to create genuine issue of material fact regarding whether employer’s proffered nondiseriminatory justifications are mere pretext for intentional discrimination); see also Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996, 1007 (8th Cir.2012) (Family and Medical Leave Act discrimination claim requires showing that employee’s exercise of rights under Act played part in employer’s adverse decision).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.