Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph Lamont FRENCH Plaintiff-Appellant v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES; Integrity Solution Services; Radius Global Services Defendants-Appellees
[Unpublished]
In this action under the Equal Pay Act, Joseph French appeals after the District Court 1 granted summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his wage-discrimination and retaliation claims. After de novo review, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (standard of review), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 978, 132 S.Ct. 513, 181 L.Ed.2d 349 (2011). French’s wage-discrimination claim failed as a matter of law because the challenged pay differential was undisputedly explained by a valid factor other than sex. See Price v. N. States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186, 1191 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing the burden-shifting framework for a wage-discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act). Further, his retaliation claim failed as a matter of law because he did not present a causal connection between protected activity and his termination. See Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011, 1021 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing the burden-shifting framework for a retaliation claim). Finally, contrary to French’s suggestion on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in managing discovery in this case. See Stringfellow v. Perry, 869 F.2d 1140, 1143 (8th Cir. 1989) (“District courts are afforded wide discretion in their handling of discovery matters.”).
We affirm the judgment.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2448
Decided: March 18, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)