Rev. David L. Joe v. Walgreens Co./ILL, et al, No. 10-2656 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - employment discrimination. District court did not err in finding federal claims were time-barred or in dismissing plaintiff's state- law claims.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2656 ___________ Rev. David L. Joe, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Walgreens Co./ILL; Walgreens Co./ * ILL, District 311; Jason Frederick, in * [UNPUBLISHED] his official capacity; Mary Ann Hansen, * in her official capacity; Kristine Rasby, * in her official capacity; Frank * Maxwell, in his official capacity, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 7, 2011 Filed: February 18, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. The Reverend David Joe appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action asserting both state-law and federal law employment- 1 The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. discrimination claims. On de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of Joe s statelaw claims was proper. See Jansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 562 N.W.2d 122, 124 (S.D. 1997). We also agree with the district court that Joe s federal claims are time-barred, and conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant equitable tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). 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.
