Johnson v. Atlas Copco Tools

Filing 920080509

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 08a0252n.06 Filed: May 9, 2008 Nos. 06-2560; 06-2638; 07-1043 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DAVID M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLAS COPCO SYSTEMS, INC., TOOLS & ASSEMBLY

Defendant-Appellee.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN OPINION

BEFORE:

GUY, SUHRHEINRICH, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant David M. Johnson filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that Defendant-Appellee Atlas Copco Tools & Assembly Systems, Inc. impermissibly terminated his employment based on Johnson's age and national origin, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101, et seq. The district court granted Atlas's motion for summary judgment and found that Johnson had not sufficiently rebutted the legitimate business rationale for Johnson's termination. Upon de novo review of the district court's grant of summary judgment, Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006), and following oral argument, we are of the view that the district court has thoroughly and comprehensively articulated the reasoning and analysis supporting summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the issuance of a detailed written

Nos. 06-2560; 06-2638; 07-1043 Johnson v. Atlas Copco Tools opinion by us would be unnecessarily duplicative and the judgment rendered by the Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds on October 16, 2006, is therefore affirmed on the basis of the reasoning set forth in her Opinion.

-2-