1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSEMARY ADAMS AND RICHARD MURAO, Plaintiffs, v. B&B SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO Memorandum and Order YOHN, J. February, 2008 Plaintiffs Rosemary Adams and Richard Murao filed this action against B&B Security Consultants, Inc. ( B&B ) alleging discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. B&B now moves for summary judgment. 1 For the following reasons, I will deny B&B s motion. I. Factual and Procedural Background 2 B&B employed security guards who provided security services in, among other locations, Foot Locker stores in Philadelphia. B&B s president was Willie Borden, who is African 1 Plaintiffs have not moved for summary judgment. In their response to B&B s summary judgment motion, they twice refer to plaintiff[s ] motion for summary judgment. (Pls. Resp. to Def. s Mot. Summ. J. 2, 18.) These references do not turn their responsive brief into a motion 2 When a court evaluates a motion for summary judgment, [t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Furthermore, all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the nonmovant s] favor. Id. Here, plaintiffs are the nonmovants, and so for purposes of this motion I assume their version of the events, supplemented by the uncontested facts, is true. 1
2 American. (Willie Borden Decl. 2, Dec. 31, 2007.) In August 2003, B&B hired Adams, a white female, and Murao, an Asian American male, to work as security officers on the Foot Locker account. Jose Luciano, who oversaw B&B s Philadelphia operations, hired and supervised plaintiffs. (Borden Decl. 5; Rosemary Adams Dep , Nov. 30, 2007; Richard Murao Dep , Nov. 28, 2007.) In Philadelphia, B&B worked in association with another security firm, Black Knights, because B&B had not yet secured the necessary business licenses. (Borden Decl. 6.) Juan Clark worked for Black Knights in Philadelphia. (Id. 11.) Foot Locker permitted only legitimate law enforcement officers as defined by Foot Locker to act as security guards in its stores. (Pls. Resp. Ex. D.) B&B in Philadelphia experienced significant problems relating to Foot Locker s requirement that security guards in its stores possess certain qualifications. 3 (Borden Decl. 7; Willie Borden Dep , , Feb. 2, 2007.) For that reason, Borden fired Luciano in early December 2003 (Borden Decl. 9), and asked Clark to manage B&B s Philadelphia employees until Luciano s position could be filled. (Borden Dep. at ) Thereafter, according to Borden, Borden asked Clark to contact all Philadelphia B&B employees to advise them that if they wished to continue employment with B&B, they must attend a meeting at a Philadelphia hotel on or about December 13, 2003 ( the December 13 3 The facts underlying the dispute between B&B and Foot Locker arising from these problems are not entirely clear from the record before me. Essentially, however, it appears that although B&B employees had obtained weapons permits from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, they did not meet Foot Locker s more stringent qualifications required of security guards. What those qualifications were and what qualifications B&B employees had are not clear, but knowledge of the qualifications is not necessary for the disposition of this motion. 2
3 meeting ). (Borden Decl. 11.) Only three B&B employees attended the meeting, all of whom are African American. (Adams Dep ; Borden Dep ; Def. s Mem. in Supp. Summ. J. Exs. E, F.) B&B knew at the time of the December 13 meeting that there had been a communication problem regarding the meeting. Borden testified, When we got to the meeting and there was only these three guys there and him and myself, then we assumed that something must have happened in terms of communication. (See Borden Dep ) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ), relying on witness interviews not in the record in this case, found that Borden himself instructed the three African American B&B employees to attend the December 13 meeting. 4 (Pls. Resp. Ex. B, at 1-2.) Plaintiffs learned of the December 13 meeting only while attending a separate meeting, organized by Luciano, during which Luciano called Clark, who explained that he was meeting with Borden and three B&B employees. (Adams Dep ) Plaintiffs then understood themselves to have been pulled off the Foot Locker job. (Id. at ) The three African American B&B employees who attended the December 13 meeting continued to work in Foot Locker stores. (Borden Dep ) Within a few days after the December 13 meeting, plaintiffs and other B&B employees who had not attended that meeting drove to B&B s headquarters in Washington, D.C. to meet with B&B s management and express their concerns about the continuation of their jobs. 4 EEOC determinations are relevant, admissible evidence in Title VII cases, although they may be excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 if unduly prejudicial. See El v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 479 F.3d 232, 248 n.19 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333, (3d Cir. 2002)). B&B has not argued that the EEOC determination in this case is unduly prejudicial; neither has it argued that the sources of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(c); Coleman, 306 F.3d at Therefore, I will consider it in deciding this motion for summary judgment. 3
4 (Borden Dep ; Adams Dep ; Murao Dep ) Borden was unavailable, but the employees spoke with Ronson Britt, who worked with Borden. (Borden Dep ; Adams Dep ; Murao Dep ) Britt said he did not know why the employees had been pulled off the Foot Locker accounts and that he would be back in touch with the employees. He additionally said that the employees were still on the B&B payroll, as far as he was concerned. (Adams Dep ; Murao Dep ; see also Def. s Mem. Ex. F.) After the Washington, D.C. trip, the employees waited for Britt to call them, and Adams called B&B and left messages over the course of three days. (Adams Dep ; Def. s Mem. Ex. F.) According to Borden, after the meeting between the employees and Britt, he told Britt to make sure the employees knew to contact Clark because there s no way I can now step back into this because I ve agreed with Juan Clark that he s going to manage it. So if they re going to work, they re going to have to go back through him. (Borden Dep ) However, plaintiffs never heard from anyone at B&B. (Adams Dep ; Murao Dep ; Def. s Mem. Ex. F.) At some point after the trip to Washington, D.C., Clark s secretary contacted plaintiffs and informed them that they could come and pick up their final paychecks. When plaintiffs arrived to pick up the checks, they were told they were not on the list to work for B&B and received their checks. (Adams Dep ; Murao Dep ) Adams timely filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC. (See Pls. Resp. Ex. B, at 1.) The EEOC found Evidence of record supports Charging Party s allegation that h[er] removal from h[er] Security Officer position by Respondent was because of h[er] race.... The evidence secured during the investigation clearly shows that Charging Party s race was a factor 4
5 considered by the Respondent when it failed to contact her regarding the meeting at the Hyatt Hotel, which led to the continued employment of Black security officers who had also been laid off. (Id. at 2.) According to uncontested allegations in plaintiffs Complaint, the EEOC could not reach a negotiated settlement with the parties with respect to damages, and therefore it issued a Notice of Right to Sue on July 19, Plaintiffs timely filed this lawsuit on October 13, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on January 1, II. Standard of Review A motion for summary judgment will be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 n.10 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). Facts that could alter the outcome are material, and disputes are genuine if evidence exists from which a rational person could conclude that the position of the person with the burden of proof on the 5 I note that it is now uncontested that at least three African American employees were terminated at the same time plaintiffs were and that these three employees, like plaintiffs, were not rehired. Furthermore, at least two non-african American employees were retained by B&B for a significant period after plaintiffs were terminated. (See Def. s Statement Undisputed Material Facts 14-15; Pls. Counter-Statement Undisputed Facts ) Finally, no one from B&B ever made comments to plaintiffs about their race. (Adams Dep , ; Murao Dep ) 5
6 disputed issue is correct. Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. John Lebatt, Ltd. 90 F.3d 737, 743 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Horowitz v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 57 F.3d 300, 302 n.1 (3d Cir. 1995)). The nonmoving party must present concrete evidence supporting each essential element of its claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at In doing so, the nonmoving party must show more than [t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence for elements on which he bears the burden of production, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, and it may not rely merely on bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions, see Fireman s Ins. Co. v. Du Fresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982). Thus, [w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. III. Discussion Title VII prohibits an employer from discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a). 6 To prevail on their Title VII claim, plaintiffs must at a minimum present circumstantial evidence of discrimination using the familiar burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S The full text of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) provides It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 6
7 (1973). 7 Pursuant to McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must first provide evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. See St. Mary s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993). If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the defendant then must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee s [termination]. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If the defendant does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the reasons proffered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but rather a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804. A prima facie case of unlawful discrimination under Title VII is comprised generally of four elements (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) the plaintiff is qualified for the job, (3) the employer took an adverse action that affected the terms and conditions of the plaintiff s employment, and (4) the circumstances permit an inference of unlawful discrimination. See Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 411 (3d Cir. 1999). B&B does not contest plaintiffs prima facie case with respect to elements one, three, and four. B&B has asserted, however, that [t]here is a substantial question regarding whether plaintiffs were qualified for the position because plaintiffs have admitted that their credentials did not satisfy Foot Locker s requirements for its security officers. (Def. s Mem. 7; see also Adams Dep , ; Murao Dep , ) Assuming plaintiffs did not meet Foot Locker s requirements, the record before me shows that other B&B employees were similarly unqualified (see Pls. Resp. Ex. D), and that Borden considered plaintiffs to be qualified to work for B&B (see Borden Dep ; ) As B&B has raised no other 7 Where no direct evidence of discrimination exists, courts use the burden-shifting scheme set forth in McDonnell Douglas to assess a plaintiff s circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Plaintiffs in this case do not present direct evidence of discrimination. 7
8 issues with respect to the prima facie case, and I conclude plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for purposes of this motion. 8 After determining that a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the court must decide whether the defendant has articulated a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff s termination. The burden on the defendant is one of production; a defendant must introduce evidence which, taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the unfavorable employment decision. The employer need not prove that the tendered reason actually motivated its behavior, as throughout this burden-shifting paradigm the ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination always rests with the plaintiff. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 763 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted) (citing St. Mary s Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 507; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253). The burden is relatively light. Id. B&B asserts that plaintiffs were terminated because (1) having been informed of a mandatory meeting of security guards, they failed to attend, and (2) they failed to advise Clark that they wanted to resume work. (Def. s Mem. 7-8.) If true, this explanation for B&B s termination of plaintiffs and its decision not to rehire them would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for B&B s decision. See, e.g., Gordon v. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc., 469 F.3d 1191, 1196 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding the failure to rehire plaintiff was based, in part, on the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that he did not attend the pre-season meeting and did not contact [defendant] for a laborer position until after those jobs 8 This court notes that [t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 8
9 had been filled ). In light of this proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for B&B s decision, plaintiffs have lost the presumption of discrimination established by the prima facie case. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255. The burden thus shifts back to the plaintiffs. [T]o defeat summary judgment when the defendant answers the plaintiff s prima facie case with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its action, the plaintiff must point to some evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer s articulated legitimate reasons, or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer s action. Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764. In meeting this burden, however, plaintiffs cannot simply show that the employer s decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent. Id. Instead, the burden is a difficult one, which for each legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason proffered by the defendant requires the plaintiff to demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence, and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons. Id. at 765 (internal alterations, quotations, and citations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that B&B s proffered reasons for terminating and not rehiring them are pretextual. With respect to the first proffered reason that plaintiffs failed to attend a mandatory meeting of security guards of which they were informed plaintiffs have testified that they were not informed of the meeting. (Adams Dep ; Murao Dep ) Borden 9
10 himself testified that he did not know whether plaintiffs had been invited to the meeting. He testified that Clark was responsible for inviting employees to the meeting, that Borden was not involved in inviting employees to the meeting, and that Borden left to Clark the decision which employees to invite to the meeting. 9 (Borden Dep , ) Borden was not sure that Clark invited all the employees. (Id. at ) Since there is no evidence that plaintiffs were actually invited, a reasonable jury could believe plaintiffs testimony that they were not invited, and disbelieve this legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason proffered by B&B. Taking plaintiffs version of the events as true, as I must in deciding B&B s motion for summary judgment, a reasonable jury could find that B&B s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiffs is unworthy of credence. B&B s second proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiffs termination is that plaintiffs failed to advise Clark that they wanted to resume work. As with the first reason, B&B has put forth no evidence that plaintiffs were actually told by anyone at B&B to contact Clark. Adams testified that in Washington, D.C. she and the other employees were told by Britt that he would find out why they were not working and would contact them; 10 she also testified that she called B&B s headquarters in Washington, D.C. three times after the meeting there, but that her calls were not returned. (Adams Dep ) According to Murao, Britt said that as far as he knew, the employees still had their jobs; he further said Britt knew nothing about Black Knights assuming responsibility for B&B s Philadelphia operations. (Murao Dep ) Neither testified to being told to contact Clark; therefore, the reasonable inference is that, 9 Neither side presented an affidavit from or deposition of Clark. 10 Neither side presented an affidavit from or deposition of Britt. 10
11 according to their version of the events, they were not told. Were a jury to believe plaintiffs version, the jury could reasonably disbelieve B&B s articulated legitimate reason. Therefore, again taking plaintiffs version of the events as true, B&B s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiffs is unworthy of credence. IV. Conclusion Genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to whether plaintiffs were invited to the December 13 meeting, whether B&B specifically invited only African American employees to the December 13 meeting, and whether plaintiffs were told to contact Clark to be scheduled for Foot Locker shifts. Taking plaintiffs versions of the facts as true, a reasonable jury could find that B&B s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiffs termination were unworthy of credence. Although plaintiffs case may be quite weak, the evidence currently of record, if believed by a jury, could result in a finding for them. Therefore, I will deny B&B s motion for summary judgment. An appropriate order follows. 11
12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSEMARY ADAMS AND RICHARD MURAO, PlaintiffS, v. B&B SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO Order YOHN, J. AND NOW, this day of February 2008, upon consideration of the summary judgment motion of defendant, B&B Security Consultants, Inc. (Docket No. 18), plaintiffs response thereto, and defendant s reply, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Trial is scheduled for June 16, 2008 at 1000 a.m. William H. Yohn Jr., Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MAJID AKARIMALI v. NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1009 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. January 11, 2007 Plaintiff
Case 1:08-cv-00284-CB-M Document 29 Filed 06/15/09 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMSON, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CIVIL
Main Document Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE CASE NO. 512-bk-03367-RNO STEVEN RICHARD ALECKNA JAIME SUE ALECKNA CHAPTER 7 Debtors ***********************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 8:03CV165 Plaintiff, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY and/or OMAHA WOODMEN LIFE INSURANCE
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 03-1882 NOT PRECEDENTIAL PATTY JO DORSEY, Executors of the Estate of Philip W. Dorsey III; DANIEL H. BOOKER; REDMOND JOHNSON, JR.; PHILIP S.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SANDRA PARKS v. LIFEPATH, INC. : CIVIL ACTION : : NO. 06-4293 : : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. August 9, 2007 Plaintiff
Case 1:12-cv-11605-RWZ Document 71 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11605-RWZ ELIZABETH TYREE v. ANTHONY FOXX, 1 Secretary, U.S. Department
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION APRIL DI GIOIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Judge Joan B. Gottschall ) v. ) Case No. 12 C 3071 ) INDEPENDENCE PLUS, INC., ) ) Defendant.
Case 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SHARON JACKSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-1104
Case 7:03-cv-01448-UWC Document 58 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION FILED 2005 Jun-01 PM 03:35 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0927n.06 No. 13-5221 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Gaylus Bailey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, Real Time Staffing Services, Inc., dba Select
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFFS v. No. 4:13CV00310 JLH ARKANSAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT VIVIAN R. HARRIS, : Plaintiff, : : 3:08-cv-909 (CFD) v. : : LONG HILL TREE AND LAWN CARE : SERVICE, INC., : Defendant. : RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Piper-Buckmire v. MedVance Institute Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ARLENE PIPER-BUCKMIRE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-08-0146 MEDVANCE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 96-CV-4598 PATRICIA M. CURRY KELLY, et al., Defendants.
Case 1:10-cv-00166-PTS Document 34 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JANET G. ROMERO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:10CV166 ) STATE OF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
Case 2:08-cv-02427-EFM Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MAX SEIFERT, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 08-2427-EFM KANSAS CITY, KANSAS COMMUNITY
Case 2:08-cv-03323-BMS Document 17 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA MAYER, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : CARLOS MASCAREHAS,
Phillips v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al Doc. 63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DIANE M. PHILLIPS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 10 C 2441 v. )
Case 2:04-cv-03428-SRD-ALC Document 29 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EDWARD McGARRY, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 04-3428 TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONBURG DIVISION JESSE L. WILLIAMS, ) ) Civil Action No. 5:02cv00054 Plaintiff, ) ) Memorandum Opinion v. ) ) By: Samuel G.
8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL S. ARGENYI, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION REGINA KUHN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs. COMFORT HOSPICE CARE, LLC,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROMAN GUTMAN, : CIVIL ACTION individually and t/a : R&J INSURANCE AGENCY : NO. 97-5694 : v. : : TICO INSURANCE COMPANY : MEMORANDUM
Case 1:09-cv-01486-SKG Document 29 Filed 05/18/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TREVA EPPS * V. * CIVIL NO. SKG-09-1486 WAY OF HOPE, INC., ET AL. * MEMORANDUM
Case 1:05-cv-00697-MPT Document 69 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMIE EDWARD HOUSEKNECHT CIVIL ACTION v. JOHN DOE, et al. NO. 06-4597 MEMORANDUM McLaughlin, J. December 8, 2010 The plaintiff
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0059n.06 No. 15-5011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ELLEY A. LOPREATO, APRN, RN; SUSAN M. TAYLOR, RN v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SELECT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION DIAMOND STATE INSURANCE CO., : April Term, 2000 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 0395 : NUFAB CORP.
Case 1:05-cv-01175-HHK Document 37 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAWFIK BOULOS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 05-01175 (HHK) OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT
Case: 14-13197 Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-13197 D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80535-DMM ROBERT LIEBMAN, versus METROPOLITAN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW
CHARGE 2.21 Page 1 of 13 2.21 THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ( NJLAD ) (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.) INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE COURT (Approved 5/03) The model employment discrimination charges that
23 CASE 0:11-cv-02498-JRT-SER Document 57 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA SALLY NYROP, Civil No. 11-2498 (JRT/SER) Plaintiff, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
Case 4:14-cv-00283 Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 07/31/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SELDA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-14-283 WELLS FARGO
Case 2:14-cv-02386-MVL-DEK Document 33 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KIRSTEN D'JUVE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2386 AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE
Case 1:11-cv-01397-CAP Document 69 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 10 TAMMY DRUMMONDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 1:11-CV-1397-CAP
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION RAY BRUNSON AND MARY BRUNSON, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 07-2320-MaV STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY, COMPANY, Defendant.
Case 1:14-cv-01989-ELH Document 39 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 5 United States District Court District Of Maryland Chambers of Ellen Lipton Hollander District Court Judge 101 West Lombard Street Baltimore,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 9, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SHARON K. BOESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, VS. Plaintiff, WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.) LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4634 MEMORANDUM
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0063n.06 No. 09-1145 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SUSAN CUTCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KMART CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation,
Case 5:13-cv-01237-D Document 49 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MART D. GREEN, Trustee of the David and Barbara Green 1993 Dynasty Trust,
Case: 5:14-cv-00136-DCR-REW Doc #: 138 Filed: 04/15/15 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington GEORGE VINCENT VAUGHN, Plaintiff,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1877
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PIOTR NOWAK : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, LLC, : et al. : NO. 14-3503 MEMORANDUM McLaughlin, J. February 4, 2015
2012] CASE SYNOPSES 179 GENDER AND PREGNANCY BIAS IN THE WORKPLACE Weightman v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 772 F. Supp. 2d 693 (W.D. Pa. 2011). Jaehee Jang * I. INTRODUCTION The case of Weightman v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BRANDI NICOLE COMBEST ) JACKSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-08-384-SPS ) FARMERS NEW WORLD ) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, )
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: CASE NO. JAMES MICHAEL WATSON 03-13355 DEBTOR CHAPTER 7 SECURITY RESOURCES, L.L.C. ADV. NO and INTERFACE SECURITY SYSTEMS, L.L.C. 04-1005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION STEVEN MORRIS, individually, as surviving spouse of Patricia Morris, deceased, and as the Administrator of the Estate
ILIANA RODRIGUEZ, Case: 11-15206 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15206 D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-23114-JLK versus UNIVERSITY OF
Case 3:07-cv-00173-RET-CN Document 83 10/02/08 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SANDRA SINGH CIVIL ACTION VERSUS WACKENHUT CORPORATION NO. 07-173-C-M2 NOTICE Please
Case: 13-20738 Document: 00512837766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT MARGARET D. THIBODEAUX-WOODY, v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Plaintiff - Appellant
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KAM WAN HUNG, Plaintiff, v. DERRICK WATFORD, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-3580 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOHN, J. December, 2002
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Lillie M. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. The HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and Illinois State University, Respondents. No. 4-92-0546. Argued May 24, 1993. Decided June 30,
Date Signed: May 7, 2015 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII In re THE MORTGAGE STORE, INC. Case No. 10-03454 Chapter 7 Debtor. DANE S. FIELD, Bankruptcy Trustee of The Mortgage Store, vs.
C. Disparate Treatment Theory of Discrimination. Plaintiff XXXX is pursuing his claim of racial discrimination by UPS on the theory of disparate treatment, as well as disparate impact. Discriminatory or
Case 0:05-cv-02409-DSD-RLE Document 51 Filed 03/16/2006 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 05-2409(DSD/RLE) Kristine Forbes (Lamke) and Morgan Koop, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION GARY F. DILLARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3:14-cv-0903 ) Judge Trauger v. ) ) TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY, LLC, ) ) Defendant.
Case :0-cv-0-SI Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 0 HYPERTOUCH,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : NO. 96-5067 : ATTOY DAVIS, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2003 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO NORTH AMERICAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY NO. 96-4053
CASE 0:13-cv-02254-DSD-JJG Document 33 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 11 Mattu Songa, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 13-2254(DSD/JJG) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Sunrise Senior Living Investments
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WEINSTEIN SUPPLY CORPORATION : : v. : CIVIL ACTION : HOME INSURANCE COMPANIES, : THE HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, : No. 97-7195 THE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FINANCIAL SYSTEMS SOFTWARE, Ltd. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : FINANCIAL SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, Inc. : NO. 97-3356 MEMORANDUM and ORDER
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0429n.06 No. 12-4217 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CRYSTAL SARVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care of Delaware, LLC Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION RODNEY JONES, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: 8:15-cv-702-T-24EAJ GULF COAST HEALTH
Case 14-50028 Doc 30 Filed 03/16/15 EOD 03/16/15 15:59:28 Pg 1 of 8 SO ORDERED: March 16, 2015. Jeffrey J. Graham United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs