Case Name: Louis KAMPOURIS, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS SYMPHONY SOCIETY, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2000-04-28
Citations: 210 F.3d 845
Docket Number: No. 99-2704
Parties: Louis KAMPOURIS, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS SYMPHONY SOCIETY, Appellee.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 210
Pages: 845–850

Head Matter:
Louis KAMPOURIS, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS SYMPHONY SOCIETY, Appellee.
No. 99-2704.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 13, 2000.
Filed: April 28, 2000.
Eli Karsh, Clayton, MO, argued (Stanley E. Goldstein, on the brief), for appellant.
Hope K. Abramov, St. Louis, MO, argued (Richard E. Jaudes and Jordan B. Cherrick, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Louis Kampouris appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to Kampouris's employer, The St. Louis Symphony Society, in his employment-related action asserting disability and age discrimination claims. In granting the symphony orchestra summary judgment, the district court concluded Kampouris failed to establish the symphony orchestra perceived him to be disabled, failed to establish he was capable of performing the job without accommodation, and failed to show the adverse action was discriminatory. The district court also concluded the symphony orchestra's decision was based on a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and was not age-based. Having considered the record, the parties' submissions, and the district court's thorough order, we believe the district court's judgment was correct. Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court and the controlling law that informs our review, we also believe an extended discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose in a fact-intensive case that is unique to these parties. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without a comprehensive opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.