Skip to main content

MORELAND v. WOLF (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Kimberly A. MORELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chad F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-1201

Decided: November 05, 2020

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. Dennis L. Friedman, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff-appellant. Jerry L. Short, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Timothy A. Garrison, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

[Unpublished]

Kimberly A. Moreland (“Moreland”) appeals the district court's 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her Title VII action, in which she alleged her former employer, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her for previous protected activity when it did not reappoint her after her term of employment expired.2 Upon careful de novo review, see Bharadwaj v. Mid Dakota Clinic, 954 F.3d 1130, 1134 (8th Cir. 2020), we affirm.

We conclude Moreland has failed to establish a prima facie case of either race discrimination or retaliation. See Gibson v. Concrete Equip. Co., 960 F.3d 1057, 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2020) (elements of discrimination and retaliation claims). Moreland is unable to identify a single similarly situated colleague outside of her protected class who was treated more favorably by FEMA. See Carter v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 956 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (similarly situated means having the same issues). Nor has she shown a causal link between her protected activity and her non-reappointment. See Kipp v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 280 F.3d 893, 896–97 (8th Cir. 2002). Even assuming Moreland established a prima facie case for either of her claims, she did not offer sufficient evidence to show FEMA's reason for her non-reappointment (her workplace conduct, which was not conducive to a harmonious workplace environment) was pretextual. See Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy, Co., 860 F.3d 1121, 1125–26 (8th Cir. 2017).

Moreland's remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2.   Moreland also asserted claims of sex and age discrimination that she abandoned on appeal.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go to Learn About the Law
MORELAND v. WOLF (2020)

Docket No: No. 19-1201

Decided: November 05, 2020

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

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.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard