Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03823/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03823-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3823

___________

Tressia L. Lewis, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * District of Missouri.

 *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellee. *

_________

Submitted: September 17, 2004

Filed: October 14, 2004 (Corrected: 10/19/04)

___________

Before MURPHY, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tressia L. Lewis alleges that she was unlawfully disciplined and terminated by

the United States Postal Service, based upon her race and gender, in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. The district court1

granted summary judgment to the USPS, ruling Lewis failed to demonstrate that the

USPS’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discipline and termination were

Appellate Case: 03-3823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821720 
-2-

pretext for discrimination. This Court reviews de novo the grant of summary

judgment, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Lewis. Rose - Matson v.

NME Hospitals, Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 1997). Jurisdiction being proper

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this Court now affirms.

The USPS disciplined Lewis, after progressive discipline, for various violations

of USPS policy – ultimately terminating her. Lewis argues that the underlying

reasons for her discipline and termination were racial and gender discrimination.

Lewis alleges that she was singled out and disproportionately disciplined by her

supervisors, because she is an African-American woman. 

 The USPS responds that the reasons for discipline and termination were Lewis'

"failure to follow instructions," "inappropriate conduct," being "absent from [her]

work assignment," and her job performance. Lewis counters that the USPS' reasons

were pretext for discrimination.

In support of her allegation, Lewis cited two occasions when the USPS

disciplined her for returning late from break. For evidence of discrimination, Lewis

noted that on both occasions two other African-American women were also late

returning from break, but were not disciplined. Lewis also asserted that criticism of

her job performance was unfounded and pretextual. In support, she relied on the

EEO-hearing testimony of a USPS trainer who testified that she ran her machine like

anyone else, and she was "no subpar person."

Under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411

U.S. 792, 801-04 (1973), a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of

discrimination to establish a claim under Title VII. Ross v. Kansas City Power &

Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1046 (8th Cir. 2002). Once the plaintiff does this, the

burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason. Id. If the employer satisfies this burden, the burden of

Appellate Case: 03-3823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821720 
-3-

production shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer's proffered

reason is pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id. To establish that an employer's

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is pretext for discrimination, an employee must

offer evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to infer discrimination. Matthews v.

Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1165 (8th Cir. 1998).

Although Lewis alleges that the USPS' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons

were pretext for discrimination, she failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the

USPS' reasons. Lewis relies on evidence that she was singled out and

disproportionately disciplined, because of her race and gender. Although it appears

she was singled out, there is no evidence this was motivated by unlawful

discrimination. For example, the two occasions Lewis claims she was singled out for

discipline, she was accompanied by other African-American women, engaging in the

same behavior, who were not disciplined. This fact prevents a reasonable trier from

inferring discrimination.

 

Lewis also relies on the trainer's testimony for the proposition that the USPS's

criticisms of her job performance were untrue. But, Lewis must do more than cast

doubt on the veracity of the USPS' proffered reasons; she must present evidence that

infers discrimination. Lewis failed to present such evidence. As a result, Lewis did

not meet her burden of production under McDonnell Douglas. The district court did

not err in granting summary judgment to the USPS.

Lewis also claims to have been subject to a hostile work environment and

retaliation. As for the hostile work environment, she cites the following as

harassment she alleges created a hostile work environment: (1) being closely

monitored by her supervisors during breaks and while she worked on numerous

occasions; (2) two instances where she was told to stop talking by her supervisors;

(3) one instance where she believes she was followed by a supervisor; (4) two

occasions where a supervisor asked her to perform work she believed to be outside

Appellate Case: 03-3823 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821720 
-4-

her medical restrictions; and (5) one instance when she was not paid for eight hours

of work after she swiped her time card at the wrong location. The conduct Lewis

cites falls short of establishing a claim for hostile work environment.

Hostile-work-environment harassment occurs when the workplace is permeated

with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or

pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive

working environment. Tademe v. St. Cloud St. University, 328 F.3d 982, 991 (8th

Cir. 2003). In this case, the acts of Lewis' supervisors are neither severe nor

pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment claim. The district court

did not err in granting summary judgment to the USPS.

With respect to her retaliation claim, Lewis alleges that after she filed her EEO

complaint, she was singled out more frequently for discipline, scrutiny, and

monitoring. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show

that: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) the USPS took adverse

action against her; and (3) a connection exists between the two occurrences. Id. at

992. Here, Lewis failed to present evidence of a causal nexus between her filing the

EEO complaint and the increased level of being singled out for discipline, scrutiny,

and monitoring. Thus, Lewis did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

The judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the USPS

is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3823 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821720 
-5-

Appellate Case: 03-3823 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/14/2004 Entry ID: 1821720