Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01956/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01956-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1956

___________

Charles L. Burgett, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

John W. Snow, Secretary, Department *

of the Treasury, * [UNPUBLISEHD]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 17, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles L. Burgett, an African-American, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against the

Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (Department). Having

conducted de novo review of the record, we affirm. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289

F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review).

Appellate Case: 05-1956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2006 Entry ID: 2033651
2

Burgett has abandoned his claims related to the other incidents alleged in his

complaint by not addressing them in his brief. See Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738,

742-43 (8th Cir. 2005).

-2-

We agree with the district court that (1) Burgett did not show that the

Department’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting him for a 1996

lead-tax-examining position was pretextual, see Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000) (ultimate burden of persuading court that

defendant intentionally discriminated always remains on plaintiff); (2) he failed to

establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination or retaliation related to

a December 1996 disciplinary memorandum, see Turner v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688,

694 (8th Cir. 2005) (gender); Zhuang v. Datacard Corp., 414 F.3d 849, 856 (8th Cir.

2005) (retaliation); Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474, 478 (8th Cir. 2004)

(race); and (3) he did not create any trialworthy issues as to whether the Department’s

reasons for his three-day and fourteen-day suspensions in 1997 were pretextual, see

Phillips v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 216 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir. 2000) (evidence of

disparate treatment can support finding of pretext, but plaintiff and party alleged to

have received more favorable treatment must be similarly situated in all relevant

respects); cf. 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).2

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the

Department to file its summary judgment exhibits one day late. See Griffin v. Super

Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 870 (8th Cir. 2000) (absent abuse of discretion, this court will

not interfere with district court’s docket management).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2006 Entry ID: 2033651