Filed: May 24, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-2971 _ Kesheanna Jackson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Norac, Inc. (originally named as Norac Additives Inc), doing business as Norac Additives lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena _ Submitted: May 19, 2017 Filed: May 24, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this employment
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-2971 _ Kesheanna Jackson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Norac, Inc. (originally named as Norac Additives Inc), doing business as Norac Additives lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena _ Submitted: May 19, 2017 Filed: May 24, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this employment-..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-2971
___________________________
Kesheanna Jackson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Norac, Inc. (originally named as Norac Additives Inc), doing business as Norac Additives
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
____________
Submitted: May 19, 2017
Filed: May 24, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this employment-discrimination action, Kesheanna Jackson appeals the
district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on her harassment and retaliation
1
The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
claims under Title VII and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
This court agrees with the district court’s reasoning and concludes that
summary judgment was properly granted. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman,
690 F.3d 1017,
1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing
record in light most favorable to nonmovant); Integrity Floorcovering, Inc. v.
Broan-Nutone, LLC,
521 F.3d 914, 917 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court’s determination
of state law is reviewed de novo).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-