HILL v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (2018)

[Unpublished]

Phyllis Hill appeals from the district court’s ¹ 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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.