CULPEPPER v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (2019)

[Unpublished]

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 court ¹ 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.

FOOTNOTES

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).

PER CURIAM.