Ida Pettus v. Elbert Harvey, No. 12-2067 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - employment discrimination. District court's grant of summary judgment on race discrimination and retaliation claims was proper. [ December 10, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2067 ___________________________ Ida Pettus lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Elbert Harvey; Laura Bednar, in their individual capacities lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees -----------------------------Ida M. Pettus lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Arkansas Department of Education lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 23, 2012 Filed: December 11, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ida Pettus appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action asserting race-discrimination and retaliation claims against her former employer and supervisors. Upon careful de novo review, see Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 513 (2011), we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper. We agree with the district court that defendants articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Pettus s discharge--her repeated failure to update her work calendar as required--and that Pettus did not present sufficient evidence to suggest this reason was pretextual. See Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 735-36 (8th Cir. 2003) (violation of company policy is legitimate reason for termination); Bogren v. Minn., 236 F.3d 399, 406 (8th Cir. 2000) (without independent evidence to support finding of pretext, generic employment statistics are not probative of reason for termination). We also agree that the almost three-month interval from the time Pettus s supervisor learned of her discrimination charge until her termination was insufficient to support a causal connection for a retaliatory-discharge claim, see Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trustees, 628 F.3d 985, 986 (8th Cir. 2011) (no inference of retaliation when interval is measured in months); and that her reassignment to another area of the state did not constitute an adverse employment action, see Montandon v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 116 F.3d 355, 359 (8th Cir. 1997) (transfer that does not entail change in position, title, salary, or any other aspect of employment does not rise to level of adverse employment action). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ___________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
