Deborah Johnson v. US Security Associates , 412 F. App'x 918 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ________________
    No. 10-2864
    ________________
    Deborah D. Johnson,                       *
    *
    Appellant,                   *       Appeal from the United States
    *       District Court for the
    v.                                  *       Eastern District of Arkansas.
    *
    US Security Associates, Inc.,             *            [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                    *
    ________________
    Submitted: March 10, 2011
    Filed: March 15, 2011
    ________________
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ________________
    PER CURIAM.
    Deborah Johnson appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by
    the District Court1 in her lawsuit alleging hostile-work-environment and retaliation
    claims based on sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17. After careful consideration of
    1
    The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    Johnson’s arguments and a de novo review of the record, see Kratzer v. Rockwell
    Collins, Inc., 
    398 F.3d 1040
    , 1043 (8th Cir. 2005), we affirm.
    Johnson abandoned her hostile-work-environment claim and her retaliatory-
    discipline claim by failing to address those claims in her appellate brief. See
    Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 
    765 F.2d 736
    , 740 (8th Cir. 1985) (“A party’s
    failure to raise or discuss an issue in his brief is to be deemed an abandonment of that
    issue.”). Additionally, the District Court correctly concluded that Johnson failed to
    establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. “A plaintiff must show the
    employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the protected activity in order to
    establish a prima facie case of retaliation.” Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., Inc., 
    216 F.3d 707
    , 715 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 1077
     (2001). In this case, there
    is insufficient evidence that the relevant decision-maker had any knowledge that
    Johnson had engaged in protected activity. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
    the District Court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2864

Citation Numbers: 412 F. App'x 918

Judges: Bowman, Per Curiam, Smith, Wollman

Filed Date: 3/15/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023