Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02133/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02133-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2133 

___________

Doris Scott, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

John E. (Jack) Potter, in his official *

capacity as Postmaster General, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2005

 Filed: June 8, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Doris Scott appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her employment discrimination action against Postmaster General John

Potter (hereinafter United States Postal Service (“USPS”)). We review a grant of

summary judgment de novo. See Spangler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines,

278 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2002).

Appellate Case: 04-2133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912852
-2-

Scott’s sex discrimination claim was properly dismissed because she failed to

exhaust her administrative remedies for that claim. See Miller v. Runyon, 32 F.3d

386, 389 (8th Cir. 1994). As to Scott’s age and race discrimination claims, USPS

proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting Scott—USPS had

concluded from medical documentation provided by Scott’s treating physician that

she could not meet the physical requirements of the job—and Scott failed to provide

any evidence suggesting that the proffered rationale was a pretext for discrimination.

See Erenberg v. Methodist Hosp., 357 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 2004). Furthermore,

with regards to her race discrimination claim, Scott did not make out a prima facie

case because the employee who was ultimately promoted was of the same race. See

Kenney v. Swift Transp., Inc., 347 F.3d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir. 2003).

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912852