Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03983/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03983-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3983

___________

Mickeal White, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

ConAgra Poultry Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2005

Filed: November 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mickeal White appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his race-based discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

and state law. Having reviewed the record de novo, see Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408

F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir. 2005) (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-3983 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2005 Entry ID: 1973643
-2-

Assuming as did the district court that White established a prima facie case of

a racially discriminatory suspension and termination, see Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 397

F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of prima facie case), petition for cert. filed,

(U.S. June 13, 2005) (No. 05-9608), we agree with the district court that nothing in

the record indicates the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for suspending and then

terminating White--his insubordination--was pretextual, see Putnam v. Unity Health

Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 736 (8th Cir. 2003) (this court has repeatedly held that

insubordination is legitimate reason for termination). Likewise, we agree with the

district court that White did not create any trialworthy issues on his hostile-workenvironment claim, as the conduct he described was not sufficiently severe or

pervasive to alter a term, condition, or privilege of his employment. See Gilooly v.

Mo. Dep’t of Health & Senior Servs., 421 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Summary judgment was also properly granted on the failure-to-promote, denialof-overtime, and retaliation claims. There was no evidence in the record that any

Caucasian employee who was similarly situated to White was promoted to the

technician position White claims he should have received. See Pope v. ESA Servs.,

Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1007 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, White failed to rebut defendant’s

evidence showing that the union had found no violation of the collective bargaining

agreement overtime provisions, and that White had consistently been awarded more

overtime than his Caucasian coworkers. Finally, White testified that he was retaliated

against (by being denied overtime) for complaining about promotions, but he admitted

he had made no complaints and filed no grievances about promotions, and thus he did

not engage in the statutorily protected activity he claims was the impetus for the

alleged retaliation. See Gilooly, 421 F.3d at 739 (elements of retaliation claim). 

White’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny as moot appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s

reply brief. 

Appellate Case: 04-3983 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2005 Entry ID: 1973643