Devonna Culpepper v. Department of Agriculture, U.S., Sonny Perdue, Secretary

17-1002Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit29.03.2019

Gesamter Gesetzestext

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2203
___________________________
Devonna Culpepper
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Department of Agriculture, U.S., Sonny Perdue, Secretary
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: February 15, 2019
Filed: March 7, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this action alleging violations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Section 508), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., Devonna Culpepper appeals from the

-- 1 of 2 --

adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the district court in favor of her1
employer, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). After de novo2
review, we conclude that the USDA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because Culpepper did not show that she was subjected to a materially adverse
employment action and therefore she failed to establish a prima facie case under
Section 508. See Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 2004) (summary
judgment grant reviewed de novo); Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d
707, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2003) (claims for disparate treatment and reasonable
accommodation require prima facie showing that employee has disability, is a
qualified individual, and suffered an adverse employment action). The judgment is
affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the1
Eastern District of Arkansas.
The district court’s dismissal of Culpepper’s (1) claims brought pursuant to2
the Freedom of Information Act, and (2) claims previously litigated, is not before the
panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim
waived when not meaningfully argued in opening brief).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.