Evon Gills v. Dept. of Community, No. 05-3365 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. Employer's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3365 ___________ Evon Gills, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Department of Community Correction * Western District of Arkansas. Adult Probation and Parole Offices; * Steve Arnold, Field Administrator; * [UNPUBLISHED] Anita Efird, Area Supervisor; Richard * Longinotti, Office Supervisor, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: December 20, 2006 Filed: December 27, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Evon Gills (Gills) appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her suit alleging gender discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and discrimination on the 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. basis of disability, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., respectively. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, see Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2005), we agree with the district court s conclusion Gills failed to establish a prima facie case, her employer set forth legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for Gills s discharge, and there is no indication her employer s reasons were pretextual. We also reject Gills s argument the district court improperly weighed the evidence or determined credibility, and we decline to consider her arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Because we conclude an extended opinion would have no precedential value and no error of law appears, we affirm the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
