Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods

Eighth Circuit

Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods

435 F. App'x 568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2011

Docket11-1515

StatusUnpublished

This text of 435 F. App'x 568 (Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods, 435 F. App'x 568 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Sales appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, Tyson Foods. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that it was proper to grant Tyson Foods summary judgment, because Sales failed to present a trialworthy issue as to whether Tyson’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review); Bearden v. Int’l Paper Co., 529 F.3d 828, 831-32 (8th Cir.2008) (once legitimate, nondiseriminatory explanation for termination has been proffered, plaintiff has burden to prove reason was merely pretext for discriminatory motive); Canady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 440 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir.2006) (plaintiff had not shown facts that permitted inference of discrimination when he merely stated his belief that he was treated differently than similarly situated Caucasian employees, but presented no evidence that employer treated other insubordinate employees differently, and employer presented evidence of several Caucasian employees who were terminated for conduct less egregious than plaintiffs); Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 736 (8th Cir.2003) (Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that insubordination and violation of company policy are legitimate reasons for termination); LaCroix v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 240 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir.2001) (noting that conclusory or general statements in affidavits and depositions do not defeat properly supported summary judgment motion); see also Anderson v. Durham D & M, LLC, 606 F.3d 513, 522 (8th Cir.2010) (federal courts do not serve as “super-personnel departments,” sitting in judgment of employer’s business decisions absent evidence of discrimination).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Sales appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, Tyson Foods. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that it was proper to grant Tyson Foods summary judgment, because Sales failed to present a trialworthy issue as to whether Tyson’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review); Bearden v. Int’l Paper Co., 529 F.3d 828, 831-32 (8th Cir.2008) (once legitimate, nondiseriminatory explanation for termination has been proffered, plaintiff has burden to prove reason was merely pretext for discriminatory motive); Canady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 440 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir.2006) (plaintiff had not shown facts that permitted inference of discrimination when he merely stated his belief that he was treated differently than similarly situated Caucasian employees, but presented no evidence that employer treated other insubordinate employees differently, and employer presented evidence of several Caucasian employees who were terminated for conduct less egregious than plaintiffs); Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 736 (8th Cir.2003) (Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that insubordination and violation of company policy are legitimate reasons for termination); LaCroix v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 240 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir.2001) (noting that conclusory or general statements in affidavits and depositions do not defeat properly supported summary judgment motion); see also Anderson v. Durham D & M, LLC, 606 F.3d 513, 522 (8th Cir.2010) (federal courts do not serve as “super-personnel departments,” sitting in judgment of employer’s business decisions absent evidence of discrimination).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F. App'x 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-sales-jr-v-tyson-foods-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack