Case Name: Michael GILLIS, Appellant, v. CRITTENTON, d/b/a Crittenton Behavioral Center, a member of the Saint Luke's-Shawnee Mission Health System, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-29
Citations: 35 F. App'x 421
Docket Number: No. 01-3363
Parties: Michael GILLIS, Appellant, v. CRITTENTON, d/b/a Crittenton Behavioral Center, a member of the Saint Luke’s-Shawnee Mission Health System, Appellee.
Judges: Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and PRATT, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 35
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
Michael GILLIS, Appellant, v. CRITTENTON, d/b/a Crittenton Behavioral Center, a member of the Saint Luke’s-Shawnee Mission Health System, Appellee.
No. 01-3363.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002.
Filed May 29, 2002.
Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and PRATT, District Judge.
. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Gillis appeals the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Crittenton. Mr. Gillis served as a behavioral health technician at Crittendon, a residential behavioral health center for minor children. When Mr. Gillis was terminated from his employment, he sued Crittenton for sex discrimination, alleging that Crittenton treated him differently from the way that it treated similarly situated female employees. Reviewing de novo, Rheineck v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., 261 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir.2001), we affirm.
Under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Mr. Gillis was required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Assuming, without deciding, that he did so, Crittenton, in turn, was required to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Mr. Gillis. See id. at 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Crittenton produced evidence that it terminated Mr. Gillis because of his excessive absenteeism. The burden then fell upon Mr. Gillis to show that the reason given by Crittenton was a pretext for discrimination. See id. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Mr. Gillis failed to satisfy this burden because the persons with whom he sought to compare himself were not similarly situated to him in all relevant respects. See Cronquist v. City of Minneapolis, 237 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir.2001).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.