Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John R. Peterson v. Kenneth S. Apfel, 99-2760 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-2760 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2760 No. 99-4302 _ John R. Peterson, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 12, 2000 Filed: July 17, 2000 _ Before LOKEN and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and HAND,* District Judge. _ PER CURIAM. John R. Peterson, a long-time employee of
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-2760 No. 99-4302 ___________ John R. Peterson, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: June 12, 2000 Filed: July 17, 2000 ___________ Before LOKEN and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and HAND,* District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. John R. Peterson, a long-time employee of the Social Security Administration’s offices in South Dakota, was reassigned from Sioux Falls to Aberdeen after an investigation into alleged work-related improprieties. When Peterson refused the reassignment, he was reassigned to the Denver Regional * The HONORABLE WILLIAM BREVARD HAND, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. Office. Rather than report to Denver, Peterson took six months of sick leave and annual leave and retired early under SSA’s Discontinued Service Retirement program. Peterson then commenced this constructive discharge action, alleging that SSA violated Title VII by discriminating against him on account of his gender and by retaliating against him for complaining about his supervisor’s sex discrimination, and that SSA deprived him of due process by the manner in which it processed his administrative complaints. The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of SSA, concluding that Peterson had failed to present a prima facie case of gender discrimination, had failed to allege an employment practice protected by Title VII for purposes of his retaliation claim, and had failed to allege or prove a liberty or property interest that would support his constitutional due process claim. Peterson appeals these rulings. After careful de novo review of the summary judgment record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s March 31, 1999, Memorandum Opinion and Order. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 1 The HONORABLE LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer