Gibson v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc.

90 F. App'x 196
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2004
Docket03-2604
StatusUnpublished

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F. App'x 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-premium-standard-farms-inc-ca8-2004.