Legal Opinion
Van Kruiningen v. PLAN B, LLC
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 1, 2007No. 3:05cv1528 (JBA)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [DOC. # 74]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Daniel Van Kruiningen and Kimberly Chatterton initiated this action against their former employer Plan B, L.L.C. d/b/a Mohegan After Dark (“After Dark”) following their termination from After Dark on January 13, 2004, alleging termination in retaliation for their reporting of activity they believed constituted sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) (Count 1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Nevada v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2018
- Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2013
- Alterio v. Almost Family, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2019
- Cunningham v. Stamford Health Medical Group, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2023
- Larose v. City of StamfordDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2025
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.