Marion J. Arnett v. R. L. Brownlee, No. 05-3627 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - employment discrimination. District court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed, as employee did not offer evidence that employer knew of disability before they made the decision to terminate.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3627 ___________ Marion J. Arnett, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. R. L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary, * United States Department of the Army, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: November 27, 2006 Filed: December 1, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Marion Arnett appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Kasper v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 425 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo review), we agree with the district court that Arnett offered no evidence that his supervisors knew of his disability before they made the decision to terminate him. Thus, he cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on his disability. 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. See Wilking v. County of Ramsey, 153 F.3d 869, 871-74 (8th Cir. 1998) (elements of prima facie case; summary judgment for employer was appropriate where, prior to awareness of employee s depression, employer had decided to terminate probationary employee based on poor performance and only question was when discharge would occur). We also agree with the district court that Arnett s reasonable-accommodation claim fails for the same reason. See Mole v. Buckhorn Rubber Prods., Inc., 165 F.3d 1212, 1218 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding summary judgment for employer where prior to receiving notice of termination, employee never advised employer she needed additional accommodation). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
