David M. Johnson v. Atlas Copco Tools & Assembly Systems, Inc.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0252n.06
Filed: May 9, 2008
Nos. 06-2560; 06-2638; 07-1043
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DAVID M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ATLAS COPCO TOOLS & ASSEMBLY
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: GUY, SUHRHEINRICH, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant David M. Johnson filed his
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that
Defendant-Appellee Atlas Copco Tools & Assembly Systems, Inc. impermissibly terminated his
employment based on Johnson’s age and national origin, in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 37.2101, et seq. The district court granted Atlas’s motion for summary judgment and found
that Johnson had not sufficiently rebutted the legitimate business rationale for Johnson’s termination.
Upon de novo review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Miller v. Admin. Office of
the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006), and following oral argument, we are of the view that
the district court has thoroughly and comprehensively articulated the reasoning and analysis
supporting summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the issuance of a detailed written

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 06-2560; 06-2638; 07-1043
Johnson v. Atlas Copco Tools
- 2 -
opinion by us would be unnecessarily duplicative and the judgment rendered by the Honorable
Nancy G. Edmunds on October 16, 2006, is therefore affirmed on the basis of the reasoning set forth
in her Opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --