Case Name: Linda L. LEONARD, Appellant, v. SCHOLASTIC, INC., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-08
Citations: 133 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 04-2892
Parties: Linda L. LEONARD, Appellant, v. SCHOLASTIC, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before MELLOY, MCMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
Linda L. LEONARD, Appellant, v. SCHOLASTIC, INC., Appellee.
No. 04-2892.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 6, 2005.
Decided June 8, 2005.
Linda L. Leonard, California, MO, pro „„
Rachel H. Baker, Seigfreid & Bingham, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.
Before MELLOY, MCMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Linda Leonard appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her claims of age discrimination and retaliation for protected activity. Upon de novo review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), we affirm.
Specifically, Leonard did not present evidence establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination or retaliation. See Erenberg v. Methodist Hosp., 357 F.3d 787, 793 (8th Cir.2004) (elements of retaliation prima facie case); Dorsey v. Pinnacle Automation Co., 278 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir.2002) (age discrimination claims brought under Missouri Human Rights Act subject to same analysis that controls claims brought under federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act); Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 37 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir.1994) (elements of age discrimination prima facie case).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughery, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.