United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 98-4216EA _____________ Bart Steadman, * * Appellant, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court * for the Eastern District * of Arkansas. United States of America, Madeline * Albright, Secretary, Department of * [Not To Be Published] State, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: July 21, 1999 Filed: August 2, 1999 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Bart Steadman appeals from the District Court’s1 grant of summary judgment for defendant. After Steadman was denied two maintenance positions with the Foreign Service, he filed this action claiming that defendant had discriminated against him 1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. based on his economic status. Steadman alleged that a security investigator had asked him questions about his debts and a previous bankruptcy filing, and that he had then been denied the positions he sought. He claimed that defendant violated Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, the First and Fifth Amendments, the Privacy Act, his constitutional right to privacy, and his "civil rights." Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and offered evidence showing that Steadman had been denied the positions based on his ongoing irresponsibility and poor judgment in handling his personal financial responsibilities. The evidence indicates that Steadman had been unsure about amounts owed and unaware of the number of accounts that were overdue; he had made only sporadic payments to creditors; he had failed to communicate with creditors to resolve discrepancies or establish payment plans; and he had generally been unresponsive to creditors about his debts after his bankruptcy. Defendant asserted that the financial-background questions were necessary to determine Steadman’s eligibility for foreign-service employment and for security clearance. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we hold that the record does not support Steadman’s claims. The District Court’s determination was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-