Phyllis Hill v. AR Dept. of Human Services, No. 18-1379 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendants' judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1379 ___________________________ Phyllis L. Hill lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services; Claudette W. Holt; David Tures; John Parke; Kelton Phillips; Lacey Wynes; Terri Jones; Anthony Tony Gilbert, Sr.; Timothy Lampe; Job Serebrov; Rowena Reyes; Walter Barrington; Doe, Arkansas Claims Commissioner lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 5, 2018 Filed: November 8, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Phyllis Hill appeals from the district court’s1 grant of judgment for defendants, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) and numerous ADHS employees, on her claims of retaliation under Title VII. We conclude upon de novo review that the district court did not err in dismissing Hill’s claims against the individual defendants, see Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp., Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Bales v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 143 F.3d 1103, 1111 (8th Cir. 1998) (no individual supervisor liability under Title VII); or in granting summary judgment in favor of ADHS, see Musolf v. J.C. Penney Co., 773 F.3d 916, 918 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review; plaintiff must show causal connection between materially adverse employment action and protected conduct). We find no other basis for reversal. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court 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.
