Legal Opinion
Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 3, 2011No. Civil Action No. 09-1350PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLIAM L. STANDISH, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a motion seeking summary judgment on both counts of the Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, UPMC Braddock (collectively, “UPMC”) and Deborah Lidey. (Doc. No. 34, “Motion.”) Plaintiff claims that in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., her employment at UPMC Braddock was terminated when she applied for leave to take care of her seriously ill mother. For the reasons discussed below, summary judgment is…
2Cases cited34 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
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lichtenstein v. UNIV. OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTERDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012