Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01496/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cingular Wireless
Appellee
Derek L. Givens
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1496

___________

Derek L. Givens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cingular Wireless, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2005

Filed: February 7, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Derek L. Givens appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his employment-discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the

record, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of

review), we affirm. 

As to Givens’s hostile-work-environment claim, we agree with the district

court Givens did not show that he was subjected to conduct extreme enough to

Appellate Case: 04-1496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864278 
-2-

change the terms and conditions of his employment, see Burkett v. Glickman, 327

F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir. 2003), or that the conduct was due to his race or gender. As

to Givens’s retaliation claim, we also agree that placing Givens on a “performance

improvement plan,” without more, did not constitute an adverse employment action,

see Henthorn v. Capitol Communications, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1028 (8th Cir. 2004)

(negative employment review is actionable only if it is later used as basis to alter in

detrimental way terms or conditions of recipient’s employment); and we find no basis

in the record for a constructive-discharge claim, see Summit v. S-B Power Tool, 121

F.3d 416, 421 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining constructive discharge), cert. denied, 523

U.S. 1004 (1998). Finally, Givens’s complaint about his counsel’s representation in

the district court is not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536,

541 (8th Cir. 1988). 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864278