From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wang v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jun 24, 2011
424 F. App'x 608 (8th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-3080.

Submitted: June 21, 2011.

Filed: June 24, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Chia-Yu Chang, Chia-Yu Chang Law, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellant.

Yupei (Claire) Wang, Scotch Plains, NJ, pro se.

Kathlyn Graves, Mitchell Williams, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.


[UNPUBLISHED]


Yupei Wang appeals an order of the District Court dismissing her employment discrimination action. After careful de novo review, see Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 2004), we affirm. Wang's choice-of-law arguments fail because she did not raise them before the District Court, see St Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 539 F.3d 809, 824 (8th Cir. 2008), and we agree with the District Court that the Arkansas Civil Rights Act does not provide a cause of action for perceived disabilities, see Faulkner v. Ark. Children's Hosp., 347 Ark. 941, 69 S.W.3d 393, 402 (2002).

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.


Summaries of

Wang v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Jun 24, 2011
424 F. App'x 608 (8th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Wang v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Yupei (Claire) WANG, Appellant, v. WALMART STORES, INC., Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 2011

Citations

424 F. App'x 608 (8th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Nolen v. Ash Grove Cement Corp.

This claim is subject to dismissal because the ACRA does not provide a cause of action for perceived…

Cochran v. Boar's Head Provisions Co.

Plaintiffs maintain that they are actually disabled under the ACRA rather than merely "regarded as" disabled…