Legal Opinion
Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 15, 1989No. Civ. A. 86-1673 (RCL)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LAMBERTH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Hobart N. Crocker, Jr. claims he had a right of first hire as a “protected employee” under section 43 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, codified at 49 U.S.C.App. § 1552 (1982) (“the ADA”), and that defendant Piedmont’s refusal to hire him gives rise to this cause of action. He seeks back pay and instatement, or, in lieu of instatement, front pay. Piedmont moves to strike portions of plaintiffs claim for relief because it claims that plaintiffs employment in his occupational specialty with Coral Air and subsequent resignation from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. BrockSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1988
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hobart N. Crocker, Jr. v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., Hobart N. Crocker, Jr. v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
- Bowdry v. United Air Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Hobart N. Crocker, Jr. v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991
- McDonald v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Bowdry v. United Air Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992