United States Eighth Circuit

Summary judgment for defendant-university in a former dean's suit claiming age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and retaliation in violation of the ADEA and Title VII, as well as parallel state law claims, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination since his permanent replacement was only two-and-a-half years younger than he; and 2) even if he did establish his prima facie case he failed to show that defendants' proffered reasons for its action were a mere pretext for discrimination; and 3) his retaliation claims were meritless.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/31/2006
• Published 10/31/2006

Judges

• ARNOLD, Circuit Judge., Before ARNOLD, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Marshall H. Tanick, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Teresa J. Ayling, on the brief), for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Scott R. Goings, argued, Asst. Attorney General, St. Paul, MN (Mike Hatch and Nancy J. Joyer, on the brief), for appellee.