Gibson v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc.

90 F. App'x 196
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided March 25, 2004·No. 03-2604·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s 1 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 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.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

Gibson v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., 90 F. App'x 196 (8th Cir. 2004).

90 F. App'x 196 (Gibson v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steve Winkle v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
195 F.3d 418 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
Stark v. American Bakeries Co.
647 S.W.2d 119 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1983)