United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________

 No. 05-3243

_______________

Sammie Lewis,

Appellant,

v.

Mike Johanns, Secretary, U.S.

Department of Agriculture,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

[UNPUBLISHED]

_______________

 No. 05-3256

_______________

Jackie E. Stevens,

Appellant,

v.

Mike Johanns, Secretary, U.S.

Department of Agriculture,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*
-2-

_______________

 No. 05-3257

_______________

Danny Harpole,

Appellant,

v.

Mike Johanns, Secretary, U.S.

Department of Agriculture; David

Orr, in his official capacity as

Deputy Director-Field Management

Division; James Decker, Jr., in his

official capacity as Industrial

Specialist; Richard Pforr,

individually and in his official

capacity as Supervisory Industrial

Specialist; Clyde Steves,

individually and in his official

capacity as Field Office Manager,

Stuttgart, Arkansas,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

________________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

 Filed: May 10, 2006

________________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.
1

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

District of Arkansas.

-3-

Danny Harpole, Jackie E. Stevens and Sammie Lewis appeal from a final order

of the district court1

 granting summary judgment in an employment discrimination

action in favor of their employer, the United States Department of Agriculture

(“USDA”).

Harpole, Stevens and Lewis are employed by the Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration (“GIPSA”), an agency of the USDA, in Jonesboro,

Arkansas. Harpole, Stevens and Lewis and another GIPSA employee, Sandra

Metheny, worked as Agricultural Commodity Graders at the GS-9 level. All four

were among those who expressed interest in the opportunity to perform a “collateral

duty,” an extra part-time duty without increased pay. Metheny was assigned the

collateral duty in 1997. Metheny was reclassified as an Industrial Scale Specialist at

the GS-9 level in 2000 and was non-competitively promoted to Industrial Scale

Specialist at the GS-11 level in 2001. 

Harpole, Stevens and Lewis claimed that the USDA discriminated against them

based on gender and retaliated against them for their previous filing of discrimination

complaints, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. They also claimed that the USDA discriminated against them

based on age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. In addition, Stevens claimed that the USDA

discriminated against him based on disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., which uses the standards applied under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 § U.S.C. 12101 et seq. See 29

U.S.C. § 794(d).
-4-

We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, using the same standards

as the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants. Baucom v. Holiday Cos., 428 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 2005). Having

carefully reviewed the record and the applicable legal principles, we find no reversible

error in the district court’s disposition of this matter. The district court found that

Lewis’s gender discrimination claim was time-barred, and that even if it was timely,

it would fail along with Harpole’s and Stevens’s gender discrimination claims. The

district court held that Harpole, Stevens and Lewis each failed to establish an adverse

employment action, which is an element of a prima facie case of gender

discrimination. Similarly, the district court held that Harpole, Stevens and Lewis

failed to establish an adverse employment action with respect to their retaliation

claims. 

Regarding their ADEA claims, the district court assumed that Harpole, Stevens

and Lewis established a prima facie case of age discrimination. The district court also

found that the USDA satisfied its burden to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory

reasons for its employment decision. However, Harpole, Stevens and Lewis failed to

produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the

proffered reasons were pretextual.

Finally, the district court determined that Stevens failed to demonstrate that he

has a disability as that term is used in the ADA. We agree but note that, although

cases interpreting the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are interchangeable because the

same basic standards and definitions are used under the ADA and the Rehabilitation

Act, only the Rehabilitation Act applies to federal employees, and Stevens brought his

claim under the Rehabilitation Act. Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 960 n.3 (8th Cir.

2002); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B)(i) (excluding from “employer” as used in the ADA

the United States or a corporation wholly owned by the government of the United

States).
-5-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court based upon the

well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________