Filed: Jun. 11, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-1247 _ Ernest Kramme, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Safelite Group, Inc.; Safelite * Fulfillment, Inc.; Safelite Glass * [UNPUBLISHED] Corporation; Safelite Autoglass, Inc., * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: June 6, 2008 Filed: June 11, 2008 _ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Ernest Kramme appeals the district court’s1 adverse
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-1247 _ Ernest Kramme, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Safelite Group, Inc.; Safelite * Fulfillment, Inc.; Safelite Glass * [UNPUBLISHED] Corporation; Safelite Autoglass, Inc., * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: June 6, 2008 Filed: June 11, 2008 _ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Ernest Kramme appeals the district court’s1 adverse ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1247
___________
Ernest Kramme, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Arkansas.
Safelite Group, Inc.; Safelite *
Fulfillment, Inc.; Safelite Glass * [UNPUBLISHED]
Corporation; Safelite Autoglass, Inc., *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: June 6, 2008
Filed: June 11, 2008
___________
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Ernest Kramme appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
on his claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After
reviewing the record de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from
in a light most favorable to Kramme, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman,
289 F.3d 517, 520
1
The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.
(8th Cir. 2002), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-