Messick

Messick v. Horizon Industries Inc.

Good Law
62 F.3d 1227·1995 WL 470303·66 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,665·68 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 986·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21477
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 1995No. 94-35025California2,669 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schwarzer, J.

Procedural status. Donald Messiek was terminated from his employment by Horizon Industries in 1992. Horizon has since been acquired by defendant Mohawk Carpet Corporation. Messiek brought this action charging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b) (1988). He also alleged as supplemental claims violation of the Oregon Age Discrimination Act, Or.Rev.Stat. § 659.030(l)(a) (1991), breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The District Court granted Mohawk’s motion for summary judgment and Messiek appealed. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Scope of Review. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 561 (9th Cir.1988). In doing so “[w]e do not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter but only determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994).

The ADEA Claim. Messiek was born in 1929. In 1980, he was hired by Horizon’s predecessor, Mohawk, as a carpet salesman with territory in Oregon and Washington. In 1986, he left Mohawk to work for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.