Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-3838•Peggy Battles v. Thompson Hospitality Services LLC, Originally Sued As Thompson Hospitality
12-3838Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit28.02.2014
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2250
___________________________
Peggy Battles
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Thompson Hospitality Services LLC, Originally Sued As Thompson Hospitality
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
____________
Submitted: February 7, 2014
Filed: February 20, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Peggy Battles appeals from the district court’s adverse grant of summary1
judgment in her action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern1
District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
29 U.S.C. § 623. Upon our careful de novo review, see Gibson v. Am. Greetings
Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 852 (8th Cir. 2012), we agree with the district court that Battles
failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed on whether (1) her
former employer’s legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her
employment was a pretext for age discrimination; and (2) she was subjected to a
hostile work environment based on her age. We also agree with the court that the
retaliation claim fails, because Battles did not administratively exhaust the claim
before filing this suit. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2
______________________________
To the extent Battles argues on appeal that her counsel below was deficient2
in representing her, we note that there is no constitutional or statutory right to
effective assistance of counsel in a civil case. See Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427,
431 (8th Cir. 2002).
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.