Harris v. Interstate Brands Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-3837WM.,02-3837WM. |
| Citation | 348 F.3d 761 |
| Parties | Claude E. HARRIS, Jr., Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Larry D. Coleman, argued, Raytown, MO, for appellant.
Brian J. Finucane and J. Eric Durr, argued, Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before SMITH, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Claude E. Harris, Jr., appeals the District Court's1 grant of summary judgment in the employment-discrimination claim he brought against his employer, Interstate Brands Corporation. Mr. Harris raises two issues. First, he alleges the grant of summary judgment violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Seventh Amendment, he says, simply prohibits summary judgment in employment-discrimination cases. Second, he argues the District Court erred in granting summary judgment based on the facts presented. After reviewing the record de novo, Wallin v. Minn. Dep't of Corr., 153 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir.1998), we find no error and affirm.
In September 2001, Interstate Brands fired Mr. Harris from his job as a "bun catcher" in its Kansas City bakery after he disregarded directions from a supervisor and turned off a production-line machine. During his tenure at the bakery, Mr. Harris had been reprimanded several times for insubordinate behavior and inappropriate language. Following his discharge, Mr. Harris filed this employment-discrimination claim and alleged racial and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation.
A grant of summary judgment does in itself not violate the Seventh Amendment. Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A grant of summary judgment does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. This right exists only with respect to disputed issues of fact. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, 187 U.S. 315, 319-20, 23 S.Ct. 120, 47 L.Ed. 194 (1902). Actions for damages caused by employment discrimination, like other actions at law, are, in general, triable as of right by jury; but there is nothing special about employment-discrimination cases that would exempt them from normal procedural controls like motions for directed verdict or for summary judgment.
The grant of summary judgment was proper given the facts presented to the District Court. On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Uscc Payroll Corp., C07-3071-MWB.
...from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that summary judgment does not violate the Seventh Amendment. Harris v. Interstate Brands Corp., 348 F.3d 761, 762 (8th Cir.2003). Specifically, in Harris, the court of appeals observed: A grant of summary judgment does in itself not violate ......
-
Koon v. North Carolina, 21-6616
...party] would have a [Seventh Amendment] right on remand to have ... [their dispute] submitted to a jury."); Harris v. Interstate Brands Corp. , 348 F.3d 761, 762 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding a "Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial" exists "with respect to disputed issues of fact"). With thes......
-
Pirie v. The Conley Group, Inc., No. 4:02-cv-40578 (S.D. Iowa 1/7/2004)
...concerning summary judgment in employment cases); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 348 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2003) (same); Harris v. Interstate Brands Corp., 348 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2003) (same); Landers v. Nat'l RR Passenger Corp., 345 F.3d 669 (8th Cir. 2003) (same); Allen v. Rumsfeld, 72 Fed. Appx. ......
-
Pospisil v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc.
...The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that summary judgment does not violate the Seventh Amendment. Harris v. Interstate Brands Corp., 348 F.3d 761, 762 (8th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the Eighth Circuit stated: A grant of summary judgment does in itself not violate the Seventh Amendm......
-
Summary judgment
...cases. No special standard for employment discrimination cases exists under Rule 56. Harris v. Interstate Brands Corporation , 348 F. 3d 761, 762 (8th Cir. 2003): “Actions for damages caused by employment discrimination, like other actions at law, are, in general, triable as of right by jur......
-
Summary judgment
...tool to determine whether any case, including one alleging discrimination, merits a trial”). Harris v. Interstate Brands Corporation , 348 F. 3d 761, 762 (8th Cir. 2003): “Actions for damages caused by employment discrimination, like other actions at law, are, in general, triable as of righ......