Filed: Mar. 25, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2604 _ William Robert Gibson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: March 5, 2004 Filed: March 25, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Age Discrim
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2604 _ William Robert Gibson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: March 5, 2004 Filed: March 25, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Age Discrimi..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-2604
___________
William Robert Gibson, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Western
* District of Missouri.
Premium Standard Farms, Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: March 5, 2004
Filed: March 25, 2004
___________
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of
summary judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act lawsuit. Upon our
careful de novo review of the admissible evidence, we conclude summary judgment
was proper because Gibson failed to submit evidence that Premium Standard Farm’s
(PSF’s) stated reason for his termination--violation of PSF’s policy against intentional
1
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
animal abuse--was a pretext for age discrimination. See Winkle v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.,
195 F.3d 418, 420 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review; burden-shifting analysis).
We also conclude Gibson’s service-letter claim fails because he did not adduce
evidence that PSF’s stated reason for firing him was false. See Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 290.140 (2000); Stark v. Am. Bakeries Co.,
647 S.W.2d 119, 124 n.5 (Mo. 1983)
(en banc).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-