Kirklin v. Joshen Paper & Packaging of Arkansas Co., No. 17-1935 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer for race and age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and for promissory estoppel. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the company's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's statement of material disputed facts and grant of summary judgment.
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking paragraphs of plaintiff's statement of material fact as unsupported by the record or irrelevant and immaterial; the district court properly granted the employer summary judgment on claims arising more than 180 days before plaintiff filed his EEOC charges; the district court properly granted the employer summary judgment on the failure to rehire claim because plaintiff took no action, never applied for reemployment, and believed he could not perform the duties of the position; the Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims were time-barred; and there was no factual basis for the promissory estoppel claim.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking paragraphs of plaintiff's statement of material fact as unsupported by the record or irrelevant and immaterial; the district court properly granted the employer summary judgment on claims arising more than 180 days before plaintiff filed his EEOC charges as he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for these claims; with respect to plaintiff's failure to rehire claim, the district court properly granted the employer summary judgment for two reasons - first, the employer took no action on the date listed in the charge and, second, plaintiff never applied for re-employment or expressed interest in returning to work; further, plaintiff did not believe he could perform the duties involved in the position; the district court did not err in determining plaintiff's Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims were untimely; there was no factual basis for plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim.
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.