Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COOK, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tommy DILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LVI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.; Local 310 Building Laborers; Philip Lupkes, Superintendent, Individually; Robert Smith, General Foreman, Individually; Tom Johnson, Project Manager, Individually; Derrick Gould, Crew Foreman, Individually; Demesheo Wilson, Operations Manager, Individually, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-4220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.
    Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and EDMUNDS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   COOK, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Tommy Dille appeals the decision of the district court to enter summary judgment for defendants-appellees LVI Environmental Services, Inc., its employees Philip Lupkes, Robert Smith, Tom Johnson, Derrick Gould, Demesheo Wilson, and Local 310 Building Laborers. Dille sued the defendants-appellees under a series of Federal and State employment discrimination claims. After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we find that the magistrate judge’s opinions carefully and correctly set out the facts and the governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants-appellees, adopting the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s opinions of August 24, 2007 except on one point. We consider it a close question whether Dille failed to set forth a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under Title VII. But even assuming Dille met the prima-facie-case test, we agree with the magistrate judge’s reasoning that Dille failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the non-diseriminatory reason LVI gave for discharging him was a pretext for race discrimination.