Filed: Mar. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 95-2349NI _ Carol A. Mummelthie, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. City of Mason City, Iowa; * Alberta Carlene Davis, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 22, 1996 Filed: March 8, 1996 _ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Carol A. Mummelthie, an employee in the city clerk's office in Mason City, Iowa, brought this equal protection claim against Mason City and the city clerk, A
Summary: _ No. 95-2349NI _ Carol A. Mummelthie, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. City of Mason City, Iowa; * Alberta Carlene Davis, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 22, 1996 Filed: March 8, 1996 _ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Carol A. Mummelthie, an employee in the city clerk's office in Mason City, Iowa, brought this equal protection claim against Mason City and the city clerk, Al..
More
_____________
No. 95-2349NI
_____________
Carol A. Mummelthie, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Northern
* District of Iowa.
City of Mason City, Iowa; *
Alberta Carlene Davis, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellees. *
_____________
Submitted: February 22, 1996
Filed: March 8, 1996
_____________
Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
_____________
PER CURIAM.
Carol A. Mummelthie, an employee in the city clerk's office in Mason
City, Iowa, brought this equal protection claim against Mason City and the
city clerk, Alberta Carlene Davis. Mummelthie contended Davis failed to
promote her to the position of deputy city clerk because of her age. After
a bench trial, the district court found no discrimination and entered
judgment for Davis. Mummelthie appeals, arguing the district court's
finding is clearly erroneous. We disagree. Although the record shows
Mummelthie is a competent and experienced clerical employee, the district
court could reasonably find Davis chose not to promote her because Davis
considered Mummelthie was less qualified than the successful candidate for
deputy clerk. Because the record supports the district court's finding
that Davis's hiring decision was not based on Mummelthie's age, we affirm.
See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
113 S. Ct. 2742, 2756 (1993); 8th
Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-