Filed: Mar. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 96-2717MN _ John Kittel; Karen Kittel, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Dayton Hudson Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: February 13, 1997 Filed: March 5, 1997 _ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. John Kittel and Karen Kittel appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dayton Hudson Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment b
Summary: _ No. 96-2717MN _ John Kittel; Karen Kittel, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Dayton Hudson Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: February 13, 1997 Filed: March 5, 1997 _ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. John Kittel and Karen Kittel appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dayton Hudson Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment be..
More
_____________ No. 96-2717MN _____________ John Kittel; Karen Kittel, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Dayton Hudson Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _____________ Submitted: February 13, 1997 Filed: March 5, 1997 _____________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _____________ PER CURIAM. John Kittel and Karen Kittel appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dayton Hudson Corporation. The district court granted summary judgment because John Kittel did not meet his employer's requirement that he be at work on the day the benefits were scheduled to commence or any time afterwards, the enrollment forms he signed clearly stated the terms of the benefits, and his Family Medical Leave Act claim failed because he did not work for his employer for twelve months. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court's judgment was correct and further discussion is not warranted. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
