Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-26
Citations: 3 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 00-2546MN
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.