Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Danny Daggett, Sr. v. Bridgestone/Fireston, 99-2192 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-2192 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2192 _ Danny Daggett, Sr., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 10, 2000 Filed: May 19, 2000 _ Before BOWMAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Danny Daggett, Sr. appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment in favor of Bridgestone/Firestone
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-2192 ___________ Danny Daggett, Sr., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: May 10, 2000 Filed: May 19, 2000 ___________ Before BOWMAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Danny Daggett, Sr. appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment in favor of Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. ("Firestone") on Daggett's claims of disability discrimination and of retaliatory discharge in violation of Iowa public policy based on Daggett's filing of a worker's compensation claim against Firestone. For reversal, Daggett argues that the summary-judgment record shows the 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. existence of genuine issues of material fact and that the District Court therefore erred in granting summary judgment for Firestone. Having considered the case, we conclude the District Court did not err in its grant of summary judgment. The undisputed evidence all points in one direction: that Firestone fired Daggett for legitimate attendance problems and that the decision to terminate his employment had nothing to do with his alleged disability or his worker's compensation claim. No error of law appears, and an opinion by this Court would add nothing of substantial value to the thorough and carefully reasoned opinion of the District Court. Accordingly, without further discussion the decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer