Legal Opinion
Foster v. Ruhrpumpen, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided April 30, 2004No. 03-5101PublishedCited by 88 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HENRY, Circuit Judge.
Jim Foster and twenty-six other individual plaintiffs filed this action against Ruhrpumpen, Inc., alleging that Ruhrpum-pen violated their rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, by failing to retain them as employees after purchasing the pump manufacturing plant at which they had worked. The district court granted summary judgment to Ruhrpum-pen, holding that 1) the plaintiffs were never employed by Ruhrpumpen and therefore could not sue Ruhrpumpen for wrongful termination; 2) the plaintiffs never filed a failure to hire claim…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Terry v. AshcroftCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Simms v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Mental Health & Substance Abuse ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- Wendell Lyons Donald Tate Robert L. Claiborne Rosevelt Willson v. Gordon R. England, Secretary of the NavyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by88 opinions
- Lincoln v. BNSF Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- Jane Doe, and Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2, Proposed-Intervenors-Appellants v. Oberweis DairyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Smith v. Cheyenne Retirement InvestorsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- Sanderson v. Wyoming Highway PatrolCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.