Tony Dam v. Graco, Inc., et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MICHAEL J. MELLOY, RAYMOND W. GRUENDER and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3745924] [10-2737]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2737 ___________ Tony Dam, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Graco, Inc.; Jim Badzinski, Manager, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: January 18, 2011 Filed: January 19, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Tony Dam appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer Graco, Inc. (Graco). After careful de novo review, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2004), this court concludes that summary judgment was properly granted. Even assuming Dam made a prima facie case of discrimination, Graco presented a valid, non-discriminatory reason for his termination – poor job performance that did not improve – and Dam failed to present a triable issue of fact 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Appellate Case: 10-2737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2011 Entry ID: 3745924 on whether that reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Richmond v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1992) (poor job performance is valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination; defendants produced documentation that plaintiff’s performance was unsatisfactory, plaintiff ignored progressive warnings, and performance did not improve). This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 10-2737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2011 Entry ID: 3745924

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?