United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2089

___________

Geneva Schuler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri.

Phillips Petroleum Company, *

doing business as Phillips 66 Company, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 1998.

Filed: March 9, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge. 

Geneva Schuler alleges that her employer Phillips Petroleum Company

(Phillips), discriminated against her in violation of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and their state

law counterparts under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Schuler alleged

and Phillips admitted that diversity of citizenship existed between the parties. 
-2-

The ADA claim was dismissed by the district court because it found that

Schuler's claims predated the enactment of the legislation. Schuler does not appeal

dismissal of that claim. The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of

Phillips on the ADEA claim, but made no reference to the associated MHRA age

discrimination claim. The district court also declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction

over the MHRA disability discrimination claim. Schuler filed a timely appeal of this

decision. Then, in a somewhat confusing turn of events, the parties filed a joint

motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. They believed the district court's

decision was not final because it made no reference to the MHRA age discrimination

claim and it declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the MHRA disability

discrimination claim despite diversity between the parties. This court granted the

parties' stipulated motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure. The parties' subsequent motions to the district court for

clarification of its decision were denied, and Schuler resumes her appeal.

Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the grant of

summary judgment to Phillips on the ADEA claim. Because Schuler's ADEA claim

and MHRA age discrimination claim are analyzed under the same standard, see Fast

v. Southern Union Co., 149 F.3d 885, 889 (8th Cir. 1998), we believe that the absence

of any reference to Schuler's MHRA age discrimination claim in the district court

opinion indicates the court's belief that its resolution of the ADEA claim also

disposed of the state claim. Having denied relief on Schuler's ADEA claim, we find

the MHRA age discrimination claim to be without merit also.

Finally, we find that the district court erred with respect to declining

jurisdiction over the MHRA disability discrimination claim. It appears that the court

was proceeding on the mistaken assumption that it only had pendent jurisdiction over

Schuler's state disability claim stemming from its federal question jurisdiction over

the ADEA claim, and that with the grant of summary judgment on the latter, it had

the discretion to entertain or dismiss the state claim. The court seems to have
-3-

overlooked the fact that since the parties were diverse, it possessed an independent

basis of jurisdiction over Schuler's state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Therefore, we reverse the district court's decision with regard to the MHRA disability

discrimination claim.

In summary, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Phillips on the

ADEA and MHRA age discrimination claims. We reverse and remand to the district

court on the MHRA disability discrimination claim for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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