Janice Norwood v. John Potter, No. 08-3697 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - employment discrimination. District court did not err in granting the Postmaster General's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3697 ___________ Janice Norwood, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * [UNPUBLISHED] United States Postal Service, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: January 29, 2010 Filed: February 1, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Janice Norwood, a former employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS), appeals from an order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to the USPS and denying her post-judgment motion in this disability-discrimination action. We conclude that Norwood's arguments for reversal are unavailing. First, the District Court did not err in declining to consider the four volumes of material Norwood filed with the court because she did not identify specific information in 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. those materials that contradicted the USPS's evidence. See Tolen v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 879, 883 n.3 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that the district court was not obligated to wade through a voluminous exhibit to find triable issues and that the plaintiff s citations to the entire exhibit and to full affidavits did not meet the specificity requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (noting that pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law). Norwood did not concisely list the material facts she disputed, nor did she refer specifically to relevant portions of the record in her opposition to the USPS's summary judgment motion. Cf. Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding that where the plaintiff concisely listed the material facts she disputed in her motion opposing summary judgment and also referred specifically to portions of the record, the district court erred in failing to consider the statement of facts plaintiff included in her motion). Second, the District Court did not make credibility determinations or weigh evidence. Instead, the court gave Norwood the benefit of the doubt in concluding that she had established a qualifying disability, and it applied the law in concluding that Norwood had otherwise failed to show that the USPS had not acted in good faith in responding to her request for accommodation. See Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc., 523 F.3d 864, 870 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that success on a failure-to-accommodate claim requires plaintiff to show, among other things, that her employer did not make a good faith effort to accommodate her). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
