Case Name: Sandra FRIERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SBC GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-30
Citations: 549 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 13-1900
Parties: Sandra FRIERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SBC GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
Sandra FRIERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SBC GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-1900.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 23, 2013.
Filed: Dec. 30, 2013.
Sandra Lynn Frierson, Blue Springs, MO, pro se.
Justin M. Dean, Michael L. Matula, Ogletree & Deakins, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sandra Frierson appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on her claim that her former employer retaliated against her, in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, after she reported the race-based and gender-based threatening and harassing conduct of a coworker, who was fired after an investigation. Frierson alleged that her job became more difficult after a reassignment of technicians she managed, her performance evaluations were not as favorable as they had been in the past, and she was told to "stick it out" rather than look for a different position within the company, before she was ultimately terminated pursuant to a reduction in force almost a year and a half after she reported the conduct of her coworker. Following careful review, we agree with the district court that Frierson did not establish a causal connection between any adverse employment action and her protected activity. See Olsen v. Capital Region Med. Ctr., 713 F.3d 1149, 1153 (8th Cir.2013) (de novo review; to avoid summary judgment, non-movant must make sufficient showing on every essential element of her claim on which she bears burden of proof); Sagger v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 735 F.3d 1025, 1030-32 (8th Cir.2013) (to show causal connection in § 1981 retaliation action, claimant must prove that employer's desire to retaliate was but-for cause of his or her termination); McCrainey v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746, 753 (Mo.Ct. App.2011) (prima facie MHRA retaliation claim requires proof that (1) claimant engaged in protected activity such as com plaining about discrimination, (2) employer took adverse action against her, and (3) causal relationship existed between protected activity and adverse action). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.