Case ID: f-appx_20/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sharon D. VAUGHN, Appellant, v. CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC. Appellee.
    No. 00-3755.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 4, 2001.
    Filed Oct. 11, 2001.
    Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Sharon Vaughn appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. After de novo review of the record, we affirm.

Ms. Vaughn, a former “Citiflex” temporary employee at Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. (CMI), alleged that CMI discriminated against her on account of her pregnancy when it failed to select her for a permanent Senior Processor position, ultimately resulting in her layoff. Although Ms. Vaughn alleged that her supervisor, Lorenzo Baylor, had participated in the selection of Senior Processors, and had admitted to her that her pregnancy was the reason she was not selected, we agree with the district court that Ms. Vaughn failed to produce evidence — other than hearsay and her own speculation — that Mr. Baylor was a decisionmaker with respect to the Senior Processor positions. See Fed.R.Evid. 802; McLaughlin v. Essette Pendaflex Corp., 50 F.3d 507, 512 (8th Cir.1995). We also find no inconsistency in CMI’s evidence regarding its reasons for selecting other candidates, and we agree with the district court that Ms. Vaughn failed to show that CMI’s proferred reasons for choosing other applicants (that it gave preference to permanent employees, and that the two selected Citiflex employees were better qualified than she) were pretextual. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 806, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
     
      
      . Although Ms. Vaughn initially made claims under several federal statutes and the Missouri Human Rights Act, she appeals only the disposition of her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.