Dick v. Dickinson State Univ., No. 15-2419 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against her employer, DSU, alleging a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. The district court granted DSU's motion fro summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action by being exposed to floor-stripping and waxing products while employed as a custodian at DSI. In this case, plaintiff asserts facts that allegedly contradict DSU's argument, but many of those facts are not supported by the record, support claims plaintiff did not appeal, or reference incidents of alleged adverse action that are barred by the statue of limitations. Other facts, such as plaintiff's insistence that she had in fact previously applied for office jobs at DSU, while disputed, would not affect the outcome of the suit and as such, are not material. Accordingly, there are no genuine disputes of material fact preventing the district court from granting summary judgment in favor of DSU. The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam. Author, with Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Rehabilitation Act. The district court did not err in determining plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action in connection with her exposure to certain chemicals in cleaning and polishing products that would give rise to a cognizable claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. [ June 21, 2016
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.