Legal Opinion

Andrew Mattioda v. Jim Bridenstine

District Court, N.D. California

Decided February 10, 2022No. 5:20-cv-03662Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW MATTIODA, Case No. 20-cv-03662-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON NASA’S MOTION FOR 9 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 10 JIM BRIDENSTINE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 36 11 Defendants. 12 Plaintiff Andrew Mattioda, who has been employed as a scientist for Defendant National 13 Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) at its Ames Research Center (“ARC”) since 14 2007, claims that he was subjected to disability-based discrimination during his employment. 15 Dkt. 26 (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”). All…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API