Filed: May 30, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2518WM _ Gerald Street, * * On Appeal from the United Appellant, * States District Court * for the Western District v. * of Missouri. * Kraft Foods, Inc., * [Not To Be Published] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: February 18, 2000 Filed: May 30, 2000 _ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. This action was brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. The District Court1
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2518WM _ Gerald Street, * * On Appeal from the United Appellant, * States District Court * for the Western District v. * of Missouri. * Kraft Foods, Inc., * [Not To Be Published] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: February 18, 2000 Filed: May 30, 2000 _ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. This action was brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. The District Court1 ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 99-2518WM
_____________
Gerald Street, *
* On Appeal from the United
Appellant, * States District Court
* for the Western District
v. * of Missouri.
*
Kraft Foods, Inc., * [Not To Be Published]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: February 18, 2000
Filed: May 30, 2000
___________
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29
U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. The District Court1 granted summary judgment for the
defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
In our view, the case is not of sufficient precedential significance to warrant an
extended opinion. Plaintiff's theory is that he was discharged by defendant in
1
The Hon. Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western District
of Missouri.
retaliation for the exercise of rights under the FMLA. In response, defendant asserted,
and filed affidavits to support the assertion, that plaintiff in fact was terminated because
he failed to make a scheduled driving run, because he had lied to a supervisor, and
because he had falsified logs or trip sheets, or both. Plaintiff has failed to produce
substantial evidence that the defendant's proffered reasons are pretextual. Plaintiff's
submissions do not directly contest the reasons set up by defendant. After reading the
briefs and hearing oral argument, we are not convinced that there was any error in the
conclusion reached by the District Court. Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-