Filed: Oct. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-2194 _ Pamela Hoskins-Harris, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Tyco/Mallinckrodt Healthcare; * United Auto Workers, Local 1887, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: October 15, 2009 Filed: October 20, 2009 _ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Pamela Hoskins-Harris (Hoskins-Harris) appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-2194 _ Pamela Hoskins-Harris, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Tyco/Mallinckrodt Healthcare; * United Auto Workers, Local 1887, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: October 15, 2009 Filed: October 20, 2009 _ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Pamela Hoskins-Harris (Hoskins-Harris) appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2194
___________
Pamela Hoskins-Harris, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Tyco/Mallinckrodt Healthcare; *
United Auto Workers, Local 1887, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: October 15, 2009
Filed: October 20, 2009
___________
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Pamela Hoskins-Harris (Hoskins-Harris) appeals the district court’s1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. After
reviewing the record de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from
it in the light most favorable to Hoskins-Harris, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman,
289 F.3d
517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we conclude summary judgment was
1
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Thus, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
______________________________
-2-