Legal Opinion
Copeland v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 10, 1998No. 96 Civ. 4102 (BDP)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
PARKER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Vernon Copeland asserts various claims against Defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) and its employee Margaret Lare, based on race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 296 of the Executive Law of the State of New York, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 296 of the Executive Law of the State of New York. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below the defendants’ motion is denied in part and granted in part.
BACKGROUND
The pertinent facts, construed in favor of the plaintiff, are…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Carol A. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Limited Partnership, Doing Business as Prudential Relocation ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Carole Tomka v. The Seiler Corporation, Daniel Lucey, David Polonsky and Timothy ConroyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Risco v. McHughDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Baity v. KralikDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Settle v. Baltimore CountyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1999
- Chika v. Planning Research Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Kline v. Certainteed Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.