Filed: Aug. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3499 _ Janice Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Robbins Hardwood Flooring, Inc., also * known as Robbins Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: July 30, 1999 Filed: August 13, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Janice Smith appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on Smith's race
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3499 _ Janice Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Robbins Hardwood Flooring, Inc., also * known as Robbins Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: July 30, 1999 Filed: August 13, 1999 _ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Janice Smith appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on Smith's race a..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-3499 ___________ Janice Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Robbins Hardwood Flooring, Inc., also * known as Robbins Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: July 30, 1999 Filed: August 13, 1999 ___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Janice Smith appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on Smith's race and sex-based employment discrimination claims. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we see no error by the district court. Assuming for the purpose of our review that Smith established the elements of a prima facie case, we conclude there is no substantial evidence in the record tending to show that Robbins Hardwood Flooring's decision to discharge Smith for insubordinate conduct was a pretext for race and sex discrimination. We also conclude that an extended discussion is unnecessary in this fact intensive case. We thus affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
