Legal Opinion
Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 14, 2000No. Nos. 98-15537, 98-15676, 98-15760PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
In this pregnancy discrimination case, we must consider various issues raised under federal employment anti-discrimination law and state contract and tort law.
I
Rebecca Ann Caudle sued her erstwhile employer, Bristow Optical Company, Inc. (“Bristow”), and her supervisor, Janice Miletich, after Bristow terminated Cau-dle’s employment in the eighth month of her pregnancy. Caudle had joined Bris-tow as a salesperson on April 22,1993; she was unmarried at the time. In August 1994, she realized that she was pregnant. On August 25, Caudle informed 'Miletich about her…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Staton v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Nancy Lee Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., a California Corporation Gregg A. michel,ph.d., an Individual Does 1-20, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Claudette Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205 Governing Board of Glendale Union High School, District No. 205Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Price v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.