141 F3d 1167 Kathy Casper v. Desmet Farm Mutual Insurance Co.
141 F.3d 1167
Kathy CASPER, Appellant,
v.
DeSmet Farm Mutual Insurance Co., a corporation; Peter
Mack, in his capacity as the Board of Directors of DeSmet
Farm Mutual Insurance Company; Roger Elverson, in his
capacity as the Board of Directors of DeSmet Farm Mutual
Insurance Company; William Poppen, in his capacity as the
Board of Appeal from the United States Directors of DeSmet
Farm Mutual District Court for the District Insurance
Company; Donald Clarke, in of South Dakota. his capacity as
the Board of Directors of DeSmet Farm Mutual Insurance
Company; Lyle Osbeck, in his capacity as the Board of
Directors of DeSmet Farm Mutual Insurance Company; Richard
Peterson, in his capacity as the Board of Directors of
DeSmet Farm Mutual Insurance Company; Richard Root, in his
capacity as the Board of Directors of DeSmet Farm Mutual
Insurance; Allen Siefkes, in his capacity as the Board of
Directors of DeSmet Farm Mutual Insurance Company; William
Poppen, individually, Appellees.
No. 97-2816SD.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 1998.
Decided Feb. 20, 1998.
NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Appeal from the United District Court for the District of South Dakota.
Before FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Kathy Casper appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on Casper's claims for sex discrimination based on a disparate impact analysis and for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court correctly ruled that Casper neither established a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII nor a state law cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the controlling law is clear, our review satisfies us that an opinion would have no precedential value in this fact-intensive case. We thus affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation