James J. Eder v. Itt Corporation Itt Defense Incorporated Itt Corporation Electro-Optical Products Division

25 F.3d 1039, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20928, 1994 WL 251710
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 10, 1994
Docket93-2318
StatusPublished

This text of 25 F.3d 1039 (James J. Eder v. Itt Corporation Itt Defense Incorporated Itt Corporation Electro-Optical Products Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James J. Eder v. Itt Corporation Itt Defense Incorporated Itt Corporation Electro-Optical Products Division, 25 F.3d 1039, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20928, 1994 WL 251710 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

25 F.3d 1039
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James J. EDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ITT CORPORATION; ITT Defense Incorporated; ITT Corporation
Electro-Optical Products Division, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-2318.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1994.
Decided June 10, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-91-399-R)

Argued: B.K. Cruey, Roanoke, VA, for appellant.

Clinton Stephen Morse, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, Roanoke, VA, for appellees.

On Brief: Frank K. Friedman, Tood A. Leeson, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, Roanoke, VA, for appellees.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and ELLIS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, James Eder (Eder), appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the appellee, ITT Corporation (ITT), on Eder's Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq., and state law breach of contract claim. These claims arose after ITT terminated Eder in May 1990. Our review of the briefs, the record, and the arguments of counsel, discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of ITT's motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court. Eder v. ITT Corp., CA-91-0399-R (W.D.Va. September 13, 1993).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F.3d 1039, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20928, 1994 WL 251710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-j-eder-v-itt-corporation-itt-defense-incorpo-ca4-1994.