Legal Opinion
Hartzog v. Reebok International Ltd.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 17, 1999No. 99 Civ. 10850 (LAK)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KAPLAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this pro se employment discrimination action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, against Reebok International, Ltd. and The Rockport Company, Inc. (“Rockport”). Reebok, which is the parent company of Rockport, employed plaintiff from 1995 until some time in 1997. Rockport subsequently employed him as a retail sales person. He claims that both companies failed to promote him during his employment with each and that Rockport fired and otherwise retaliated against him after he filed…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jackie Lauture v. International Business MacHines CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Pierre v. Capital One Financial CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2022