Devonna Culpepper v. Department of Agriculture, No. 18-2203 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. In this suit alleging violations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, defendant was entitled to summary judgment as plaintiff did not show she had been subjected to a materially adverse employment action and thus had not made a prima facie case under Sec. 508.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2203 ___________________________ Devonna Culpepper lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Department of Agriculture, U.S., Sonny Perdue, Secretary lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: February 15, 2019 Filed: March 7, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this action alleging violations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 508), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., Devonna Culpepper appeals from the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the district court1 in favor of her employer, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).2 After de novo review, we conclude that the USDA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Culpepper did not show that she was subjected to a materially adverse employment action and therefore she failed to establish a prima facie case under Section 508. See Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment grant reviewed de novo); Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2003) (claims for disparate treatment and reasonable accommodation require prima facie showing that employee has disability, is a qualified individual, and suffered an adverse employment action). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 The district court’s dismissal of Culpepper’s (1) claims brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, and (2) claims previously litigated, is not before the panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim waived when not meaningfully argued in opening brief). -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.
