Legal Opinion
McNeail-Tunstall v. Marshall USA
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided March 8, 2004No. 02-2788-DAPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DONALD, District Judge.
Before the Court is the motion of Marsh USA (“Marsh”), Fred Higgins (“Higgins”), and Mark Overheim (“Overheim”) (collectively “Defendants”) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Janice McNeail-Tunstall (“Plaintiff’) brought this complaint alleging employment discrimination and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress by Defendants. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
I…
2Cases cited38 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
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Rhea v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2005
- Wagner v. Merit DistributionDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2006
- Crayton v. PharMEDium Services, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2016
- Grice v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2013
- Henderson v. The Waxxpot Group LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.