Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04063/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04063-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes
Appellant
U.S. Bancorp
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4063

___________

Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

U.S. Bancorp, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 17, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes (Spikes) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against U.S. Bankcorp

(U.S. Bank) brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). Having carefully reviewed the record, see Kincaid v. City of

Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review), we agree

with the district court that Spikes could not make out a prima facie case for failure to

promote, because she did not rebut U.S. Bank’s evidence that she already held the

Appellate Case: 04-4063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022636
-2-

position for which she applied. See Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 682

(8th Cir. 1996) (elements under Title VII); see also Davis v. KARK-TV, Inc., 421

F.3d 699, 703-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (Title VII and § 1981 cases analyzed in same

manner). We also agree that Spikes failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of race

discrimination, because the isolated and objectively benign comments and events she

identified do not permit an inference that her termination was based on her race. See

Wheeler v. Aventis Pharms., 360 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2004) (elements); see also

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998) (comments must be

objectively hostile to reasonable person).

We further agree with the district court that Spikes failed to present a

trialworthy issue on her disability-discrimination claim, because she could not

establish that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See Fenney v.

Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must show

disability to make prima facie case). Finally, we need not consider the claim Spikes

raises under the Family and Medical Leave Act, or her hostile-work-environment

argument, because she expressly abandoned those claims below. See United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993) (claim relinquished below need not be

addressed on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022636