Culpepper v. Vilsack, No. 10-2627 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a hearing-impaired employee of the USDA, brought this action under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., for workplace discrimination and retaliation. Defendant appealed an adverse bench trial verdict. The court held that plaintiff's failure to apply for a loan specialist position advertised in a job announcement was not excused for futility where the court found no clear error in the district court's finding that the death of plaintiff's father caused her failure to apply for the position; as plaintiff did not make every reasonable attempt to convey her interest in an accretion-of-duties promotion, her claim failed; the court found no clear error in the district court's finding that the reclassifications of certain positions to higher grade levels were not made with discriminatory or retaliatory intent; the district court was correct in refusing to consider incidents in 2009 where these incidents were not included in her complaint or amended complaint; and the district court's determination that plaintiff's allegations considered cumulatively did not amount to discrimination or retaliation was a permissible view of the evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Civil case - Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For the court's earlier opinion in the matter, see Culpepper v. Schafer, 584 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff's failure to apply for a promotion was not excused for futility; claim that defendant failed to promote plaintiff through the accretion-of- duties process failed because plaintiff never applied for an accretion-of- duties promotion; there was no evidence defendant reclassified positions with a discriminatory or retaliatory intent; district court did not err in refusing to consider plaintiff's claims from the year 2009 as they were not reasonably related to the allegations of her complaint or amended complaint; district court's determination that plaintiff's allegations considered cumulatively did not amount to discrimination or retaliation affirmed.
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.