Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0610-01.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

Jennifer S. JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MEDICAL LABORATORIES OF EASTERN IOWA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-2939.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 11, 2013.
    Filed: April 30, 2013.
    Matt J. Reilly, Eells & Tronvold, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Glenn Johnson, Nyemaster & Goode, Cedar Rapids, IA, for DefendanL-Appellee.
    Before LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges, and WIMES, District Judge.
    
      
      . The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Jenkins claims that Medical Laboratories of Eastern Iowa (“Med Labs”) terminated her employment because it perceived her as being disabled and in retaliation for complaining of workplace harassment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Med Labs, determining that Jenkins (1) failed to present direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation, (2) failed to present sufficient evidence to create a material question of fact with respect to several elements of a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, and (3) even if she had established a prima facie case, failed to present sufficient evidence to create a material question of fact as to whether Med Labs’s proffered non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason for terminating Jenkins’s employment amounted to mere pretext. After a careful de novo review of the record, see Stewart v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 196, 481 F.3d 1034, 1042 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
     
      
      . Because we affirm on the merits of the disability discrimination and retaliation claims, we do not reach the administrative proceeding exhaustion question.