Filed: Jul. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-3511 _ Lennie R. Senter lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Stericycle, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: July 7, 2014 Filed: July 11, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Lennie R. Senter appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Titl
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-3511 _ Lennie R. Senter lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Stericycle, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: July 7, 2014 Filed: July 11, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Lennie R. Senter appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3511
___________________________
Lennie R. Senter
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Stericycle, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: July 7, 2014
Filed: July 11, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lennie R. Senter appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his Title VII action against his former employer, Stericycle, Inc.
1
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
(Stericycle). Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that Stericycle met
its burden of showing that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and that it
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Senter’s claims that he was subjected
to racial harassment and discrimination, and that he suffered retaliation in violation
of Title VII. See Whisenhunt v. Sw. Bell Tel.,
573 F.3d 565, 568 (8th Cir. 2009). The
judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-