Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03816/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03816-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3816

___________

Latonieo Lawson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Arkansas Department of Human *

Services; Arkansas State Hospital, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department of Public Safety, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2005

Filed: October 14, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Latonieo Lawson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his Title VII action alleging discrimination based on his race (AfricanAmerican). Having carefully reviewed the record, see Howard v. Columbia Pub. Sch.

Dist., 363 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 436

(2004), we agree with the district court that Lawson failed to create any trialworthy

Appellate Case: 04-3816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2005 Entry ID: 1963244
-2-

issues on his hostile-work-environment or constructive-discharge claims, because the

conduct he identified was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, see, Duncan v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 934 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994 (2003),

and did not reflect intolerable working conditions, see Breeding v. Arthur J.

Gallagher & Co., 164 F.3d 1151, 1159 (8th Cir. 1999). We further find that the

district court properly granted summary judgment on Lawson’s disparate-treatment

claim because he did not adduce evidence showing that individuals outside his

protected group were treated more favorably and were similarly situated in all

relevant respects. See Gilooly v. Mo. Dep’t of Health & Senior Servs., 421 F.3d 734,

739 (8th Cir. 2005). We note that Lawson cannot obtain reversal by asserting that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536,

541 (8th Cir. 1988). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2005 Entry ID: 1963244