Christie Schneider v. Sullivan College, No. 05-2645 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2645 ___________ Christie N. Schneider, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Sullivan College; A. R. Sullivan; * Stephen Coppeck; Greg Cawthorn; * [UNPUBLISHED] James M. Kearfoit; Sullivan University, * formerly known as Sullivan College, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 12, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Christie N. Schneider appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the parties arguments, we agree with the district court that 1 The Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c). Schneider failed to create any trialworthy issues as to whether she filed a valid Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge related to her Title VII claim, or whether her Missouri Human Rights Act claim was timely.2 See Torres v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 405 F.3d 670, 677 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo standard of review). To the extent she is challenging the denial of her motion for reconsideration-construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)--we find no abuse of discretion. See Perkins v. U.S. West Communications, 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 Schneider has waived her other claims, see Watson v. O Neill, 365 F.3d 609, 614 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004); and we decline to address her newly raised claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). -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.
