Legal Opinion
Nash v. Optomec, Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided May 5, 2016No. Civ. No. 15-1845 (RHK/BRT)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
In this action, Plaintiff Thomas Nash alleges that his former employer, Defendant Optomec, Inc. (“Optomec”), terminated his employment on account of his age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn. Stat. § 368A.01 et seq. Presently before the Court ⅛ Opto-mec’s Motion for Summary Judgment; for the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.
BACKGROUND
Viewed in the light most favorable to Nash, the record reveals the following facts, most of which are undisputed.
Nash was born in 1958…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Ricci v. DeStefanoSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Beard v. BanksSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dawson v. Kroger Limited Partnership IDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2021
- Hillesheim v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2021