Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02334/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coastal Mart
Appellee
Mark Thornburg
Appellee
Tracey Toles
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation in the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2334

___________

Tracey Toles, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Coastal Mart, Inc.; Mark Thornburg, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2004

Filed: May 12, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tracey Toles appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in her action brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Iowa Civil Rights

Act. Toles sued her former employer, Coastal Mart, Inc., and its area manager, Mark

Thornburg, claiming race discrimination. Having carefully reviewed the record, see

Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002), we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 03-2334 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2004 Entry ID: 1766287 
-2-

Specifically, we reject Toles’s argument that the district court erred by

concluding defendants’ actions were insufficient to create a trialworthy hostile-workenvironment claim, see Burkett v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir. 2003) (for

hostile-work-environment claim to succeed, alleged conduct must be so extreme as

to change terms and conditions of employment); and we also reject her contention

that the district court improperly declined to consider her retaliation claim, see Speer

v. Rand McNally & Co., 123 F.3d 658, 665 (7th Cir. 1997) (district court was well

within its discretion not to permit plaintiff to proceed on new theory, raised first in

summary judgment resistance, as discovery had ended and summary judgment ruling

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2334 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2004 Entry ID: 1766287