attempted to tighten the causal connection between his ERISA entitlements and his termination, principally relying on a decision in Folz v. Marriott Corp., 594 F.Supp. 1007 (W.D.Mo.1984). Morris asserts that, in the grand scheme of things, his salary was a small gain in cost-cutting, but his package of benefits was a much richer target, citing Folz, 594 F.Supp. at 1014. Assuming that he would have been entitled to more benefits if he had been employed through his fifth year of participation in the Plan, he also asserts that his termination close to that vesting point, at four years and two months, raises an inference of illegal motive. Id. It is at this point that the court finds the cautions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Crawford come into play. Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (<HOLDING>). The court cannot say that this is a ease in
holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that summary judgment was appropriate when no reasonable factfinder could have found for the nonmovant holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that because discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant and summary judgment is appropriate in such cases only in  those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion  quoting johnson 931 f2d at 1244