Legal Opinion
Keith HINDMAN, Appellant, v. TRANSKRIT CORPORATION, Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided July 1, 1998No. 97-3491PublishedCited by 95 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PRATT, District Judge.
Keith Hindman appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States district court, granting summary judgment in favor of Transkrit Corporation, and thereby dismissing his claim that he was demoted in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (1994). Hindman argues that the district court erred in finding “no evidence from which to conclude that plaintiff was replaced by a younger worker.” A review of the record persuades us that the district court erred on this issue. We therefore reverse.
*988I. BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts reveal…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Torgerson v. City of RochesterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011
- Sandra BREEDING, Appellant, v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER AND CO., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Robert Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
- Andre Pope v. Esa Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.