Grimes v. Canadian American Transportation, C.A.T. (U.S.), Inc.
District Court, W.D. Virginia
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KISER, Senior District Judge.
Before me are two motions for summary judgment brought by the defendant Canadian American Transportation, C.A.T. (U.S.), Inc. (“C.A.T.”). The first motion, filed March 11, 1999 alleges that C.A.T. is not a proper defendant in this sexual discrimination case because it was not the employer of plaintiff Lori Grimes at the time of the offenses complained of. It is the defendant’s position that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust her state remedies by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c). For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, both motions are…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ephraim Isaac v. Harvard UniversityCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Joe D. URRUTIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALERO ENERGY CORP. and Jerry Woodson, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- Walker v. Electrolux Corp.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1999
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2004
- Barrett v. Applied Radiant Energy Corp.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1999
- Capps v. City of LynchburgDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1999
- Puryear v. County Of RoanokeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
- Carter v. Arlington Public School SystemDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.