James M. Connaughton v. Monsanto Company, D/B/A Monsanto Commercial Products Company, a Delaware Corporation

Eighth Circuit

James M. Connaughton v. Monsanto Company, D/B/A Monsanto Commercial Products Company, a Delaware Corporation

557 F.2d 635, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12664

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1977

Docket76-2034

StatusPublished

This text of 557 F.2d 635 (James M. Connaughton v. Monsanto Company, D/B/A Monsanto Commercial Products Company, a Delaware Corporation) 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

James M. Connaughton v. Monsanto Company, D/B/A Monsanto Commercial Products Company, a Delaware Corporation, 557 F.2d 635, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12664 (8th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, James M. Connaughton, appeals from a judgment of the District Court in favor of defendant, Monsanto Company. Plaintiff’s suit was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Supp. V, 1975). Following a bench trial, the District Court entered a judgment for Monsanto. The trial judge assumed, without finding, that Connaughton had established a prima facie case and held that this case had been successfully rebutted by Monsanto’s showing that age had played no part in any of its decisions regarding Connaughton.

Upon a review of the record and of the briefs and arguments of the parties, we are convinced that the trial court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that it applied correct principles of law to the fac *636 tual issues presented. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Regan’s well-reasoned District Court opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, James M. Connaughton, appeals from a judgment of the District Court in favor of defendant, Monsanto Company. Plaintiff’s suit was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Supp. V, 1975). Following a bench trial, the District Court entered a judgment for Monsanto. The trial judge assumed, without finding, that Connaughton had established a prima facie case and held that this case had been successfully rebutted by Monsanto’s showing that age had played no part in any of its decisions regarding Connaughton.

Upon a review of the record and of the briefs and arguments of the parties, we are convinced that the trial court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that it applied correct principles of law to the fac *636 tual issues presented. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Regan’s well-reasoned District Court opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 F.2d 635, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-m-connaughton-v-monsanto-company-dba-monsanto-commercial-ca8-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack