Legal Opinion
Conner v. Celanese, Ltd.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided March 31, 2006No. Civ.A. V-03-54PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
RAINEY, District Judge.
Pending before is Defendant Celanese, Ltd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 63). Upon consideration of the motion, the response, and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Hazel Conner (“Conner”) was employed as a Lab Analyst at Defendant’s facility in Bay City, Texas, beginning in May of 1977. She held the position of Top Analyst as of 1980 and retired on February 1, 2005. Plaintiff Sytheria Tucker (“Tucker”) 1 was hired to work at the…
2Cases cited45 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
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Parth v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Parth v. POMONA VALLEY HOSP. MEDICAL CENTERCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Parth v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Parth v. Pomona ValleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- WOFFORD v. SEBA ABODE, INC.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2024