Nash v. Optomec, Inc., No. 16-2186 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his employer, Optomec, alleging that he was terminated on account of his age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Optomec because plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court reasoned that, even if he had, there was insufficient evidence to suggest the lawful reason Optomec gave for its decision was pretext for an underlying unlawful motive. In this case, Optomec's reasons for firing plaintiff was that he lacked the skill set and potential Optomec wanted from lab technicians to account for the company's anticipated growth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue for trial as to whether he was discriminated against on the basis of his age, and the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's age-related claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.