Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01369/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01369-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1369

___________

Gladys Hoag; Retha Kappelman, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Arkansas State Highway & *

Transportation Department; Joe * [UNPUBLISHED]

Barnett, District Engineer, in his *

official and individual capacity; Dan *

Flowers, Director of Highways and *

Transportation, in his official and *

individual capacity; Jerry Phillips, *

Highway Foreman, in his official and *

individual capacity, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 20, 2006

Filed: May 1, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-1369 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039251
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Court Judge for

the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Gladys Hoag and Retha Kappelman (collectively appellants) appeal the district

court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in their action against the Arkansas State

Highway and Transportation Department and three of its employees, alleging sex

discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and disability discrimination in

violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. We affirm.

Based on our de novo review, see Simpson v. Des Moines Water Works, 425

F.3d 538, 541 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), the district court did not err in

granting summary judgment. As to their discriminatory-discharge claims, appellants

did not offer evidence they were qualified for their positions, a necessary element of

prima facie discrimination cases. See Grabovac v. Allstate Ins. Co., 426 F.3d 951,

955 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of prima facie sex-discrimination case); M.P. v. Indep.

Sch. Dist. No. 721, 326 F.3d 975, 981-82 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements of prima facie

disability-discrimination case). As the district court noted, appellants failed to

reconcile their discrimination and accommodation claims–specifically, that they were

“otherwise qualified” to perform the essential functions of their respective jobs–with

their receipt of Social Security disability benefits, as they were required to do. See

Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999) (plaintiff cannot

simply ignore apparent contradiction between sworn assertion in Social Security

disability application of inability to work and claim that she is qualified to perform

essential functions of job); see also Gilmore v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1042, 1047 (8th Cir.)

(because plaintiff failed to reconcile statement of inability to work on application for

disability benefits with disability-discrimination claim, district court properly

concluded that plaintiff was not qualified individual), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 955

(2003).

Appellate Case: 05-1369 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039251
-3-

As to their hostile-work-environment claims, appellants failed to offer evidence

of harassment that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively

hostile work environment.” See Wright v. Rolette County, 417 F.3d 879, 885 (8th

Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1338 (2006). 

As to their reasonable-accommodation claim, contrary to their argument, the

district court properly applied the modified burden-shifting analysis of Peebles v.

Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 2004). Also, contrary to their argument, the

district court did not err in failing to apply Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90

(2003). See Simpson, 425 F.3d at 542 n.4 (Desert Palace is relevant to mixed-motive

jury instructions, not summary judgment analysis). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1369 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039251