Case ID: f-appx_3/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annie KAYE, Appellant, v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; Business Communications Systems, an operating unit of Lucent Technologies, Inc.; and Paul M. Sylvia, individually and as agent of Lucent Technologies, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 00-2546MN.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2001.
    Decided Feb. 26, 2001.
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an action under Title VII for discriminatory discharge based on gender, and state-law claims of fraud and defamation are also asserted. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

We have little to add to the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. Defendant gave business-related reasons for its decision to fire the plaintiff, and there is no substantial evidence to show that defendant did not genuinely believe these reasons, or that they were a pretext for gender discrimination. We do not believe that the nature of the case requires a more extended discussion.

Affirmed. 
      
      . The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.