*The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1294

___________

Don Bell, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Southwestern Bell Wireless, Inc.; * District of Arkansas.

*

Defendant-Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Mark Rupley; Larry Evans, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2001

Filed: September 20, 2001

___________

Before MURPHY and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Don Bell, an African-American with no supervisory experience, was not selected

for promotion to a supervisory warehouse position with Southwestern Bell Wireless,
**The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Inc. (SWBW). An outside Caucasian applicant with five years’ supervisory warehouse

experience and ten years’ additional warehouse experience was selected for the

position instead. After filing a grievance with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, Bell sued SWBW for racially motivated employment discrimination.

SWBW moved for summary judgment, claiming it did not promote Bell because Bell’s

abrasive behavior showed he lacked the necessary leadership skills to be a supervisor.

The district court** granted SWBW’s motion for summary judgment, finding although

SWBW conceded Bell had established a prima facie case of discrimination, SWBW

offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting Bell. Further, Bell did

not show SWBW’s reason was a pretext for racial discrimination. See, e.g., Gentry

v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 250 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (describing burden shifting

analysis for failure-to-promote claims). Bell appeals. 

Having reviewed the record de novo and interpreted the facts in the light most

favorable to Bell, we agree there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Rivers-Frison

v. Southeast Mo. Cmty. Treatment Ctr., 133 F.3d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 1998). SWBW’s

reason for not promoting Bell was neither discriminatory nor a pretext for

discrimination. See id. at 621; see also Lidge-Myrtil v. Deere & Co., 49 F.3d 1308,

1310-11 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding employee not chosen for promotion because of

employee’s abrasive manner and poor coworker relationships). Bell and SWBW

describe Bell’s role in the warehouse, his conflict with coworkers, and SWBW’s efforts

to reconcile the conflicts in a consistent manner. In addition, although Bell claims he

had greater cellular experience, Bell does not dispute that the successful applicant had

far greater supervisory experience. Finally, Bell’s only evidence of racial animus is the

racial difference between himself, an African American, and the successful applicant,

a Caucasian. This difference alone does not raise an inference that race was a
-3-

determinative factor in SWBW’s promotion decision. See id.; see also Rivers-Frison,

133 F.3d at 621.

Finding no reversible error, we thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.