Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods
Date: 10-03-2011
Case Number: 11-1515
Judge: Per Curiam
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
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 1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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, nondiscriminatory 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 plaintiff's); 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).
* * *
See: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/10/111515U.pdf
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 1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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, nondiscriminatory 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 plaintiff's); 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).
* * *
See: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/10/111515U.pdf
Outcome:
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods?
The outcome was: Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Which court heard Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods?
This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape County), MO. The presiding judge was Per Curiam.
When was Andrew Sales, Jr. v. Tyson Foods decided?
This case was decided on October 3, 2011.