Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Industries, Inc.
| Citation | 545 F.2d 1127 |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1103,76-1103 |
| Parties | 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 953, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,245 Lehman E. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. VIKING PUMP DIVISION, HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Michael S. McMurry, Ankeny, Iowa, for appellant.
William W. McKinley, Cedar Falls, Iowa, for appellee.
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Anderson was employed as an engineer by the Viking Pump Company from August, 1966 until May 3, 1974. In April, 1974, Anderson was offered a $720 raise that would increase his yearly salary to $14,700. Anderson had previously voiced displeasure with his salary to Anthony B. Wagner, his supervisor, on a number of occasions and in a discussion on May 3 Anderson expressed dissatisfaction with the $720 figure and told Wagner that he would quit unless he was given a $1,400 raise. Upon Wagner's refusal to accede to his demand for an additional $1,400 per year, Anderson submitted his resignation. Approximately 90 minutes later, Anderson changed his mind and requested reinstatement without the $1,400 raise. Wagner refused to reinstate Anderson, stating that in light of Anderson's long-standing dissatisfaction with his salary, he did not think Anderson would be happy at Viking. Anderson alleged in his complaint that Wagner also stated that he did not want to rehire Anderson, then 57 years old, because he wanted to develop a younger engineering staff. In fact, Viking hired no replacement, young or old, to fill the position vacated by Anderson.
Approximately two weeks after leaving Viking, Anderson obtained new employment as an engineer at a starting salary of $16,500, which was $1,800 more per year than his previous salary at Viking. He subsequently brought suit against Viking under 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Supp. V, 1975), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), claiming that he had been fired, refused reinstatement and denied advancement because of his age.
Viking is an employer amenable to suit under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). Viking moved for summary judgment, supporting its motion with affidavits denying that Wagner had made any statement to Anderson concerning the development of a younger staff and documenting Anderson's previous poor job performance, which was cited as the basis of the decision not to rehire him. Anderson filed no affidavits in opposition to Viking's motion and affidavits. Viking's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court without a hearing. Anderson appeals.
Anderson contends that summary judgment was inappropriate in the present case because there was a factual conflict as to how he was released from Viking. Anderson admitted by deposition, however, that he had not been fired by Viking, but had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C.
...and time-consuming trials where there is actually no genuine, factual issue remaining to be tried." Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Indus., Inc., 545 F.2d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Lyons v. Bd. of Educ., 523 F.2d 340, 347 (8th Cir.1975)). The precise standard for granting su......
-
Womack v. Shell Chemical Co.
...to be drawn from the facts presented by the movant was no bar to the grant of summary judgment"); Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Industries, 545 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir. 1976). Shell is entitled to summary judgment "if everything in the record ... demonstrates that no genuine issue of m......
-
Paulson v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
...and time-consuming trials where there is actually no genuine, factual issue remaining to be tried," Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Indus., Inc., 545 F.2d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Lyons v. Board of Educ., 523 F.2d 340, 347 (8th The plain language of Federal Rule of Civil Pr......
-
Kent v. Iowa
...and time-consuming trials where there is actually no genuine, factual issue remaining to be tried." Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Indus., Inc., 545 F.2d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Lyons v. Board of Educ., 523 F.2d 340, 347 (8th As employment actions are inherently fact base......