Kevin Pennington v. AR Game & Fish Commission, No. 17-2338 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment. [ March 08, 2018

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2338 ___________________________ Kevin Pennington lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, originally named as Arkansas Game and Fish lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: March 1, 2018 Filed: March 9, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Pennington appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, the 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, in which he asserted claims of failure to promote, as well as discriminatory and retaliatory termination. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. See Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 852-54 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review; in absence of direct evidence of discrimination, Title VII claims are analyzed under burdenshifting framework: if plaintiff establishes prima facie case, defendant may rebut by articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment action; in response, plaintiff must prove reason was pretextual); Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925, 935 (8th Cir. 2006) (to prove pretext, plaintiff must both discredit asserted reason for adverse employment action and show that circumstances permit reasonable inference that real reason for adverse action was unlawful discrimination). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.