Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02725/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02725-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Virginia Davidson
Appellant
Tyco/Healthcare Mallinckrodt
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2725

___________

Virginia Davidson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Tyco/Healthcare Mallinckrodt, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 7, 2006

Filed: November 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Virginia Davidson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in this action against her former employer, Tyco/Healthcare Mallinckrodt,

Inc. (Mallinckrodt). Following careful de novo review, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha,

378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we agree with the district

court that, even assuming Davidson established a prima facie case of race

discrimination, she failed to establish that Mallinckrodt’s decision to eliminate a

position in her department as a result of improved technology and increased

Appellate Case: 05-2725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109229
-2-

efficiency, and its specific decision to eliminate her position based on her low score

on an assessment of the employees in her department, were pretextual. See Davis v.

KARK-TV, Inc., 421 F.3d 699, 703-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (Title VII and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981 cases analyzed in same manner); Wheeler v. Aventis Pharms., 360 F.3d 853,

857 (8th Cir. 2004) (prima facie case of discrimination requires proof that claimant

was member of protected group, met legitimate expectations of her employer, and

suffered adverse employment action, and that circumstances existed which gave rise

to inference of discrimination; after legitimate explanation for termination is

presented, claimant must produce sufficient evidence that proffered reason was not

true reason for termination). 

In addition, Davidson’s retaliation claims failed because she did not establish

that she engaged in protected conduct and then suffered an adverse employment action

that was causally linked to the protected conduct, see Putman v. Unity Health Sys.,

348 F.3d 732, 737 (8th Cir. 2003) (elements of retaliation claim); Hunt v. Neb. Pub.

Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021, 1028 (8th Cir. 2002) (protected activity includes

opposing act of discrimination made unlawful by Title VII); and she did not offer any

evidence of a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or meet her

burden of showing her termination was in retaliation for her use of FMLA leave, see

29 U.S.C. § 2612; Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827, 832 (8th Cir. 2002).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109229