Legal Opinion
Reed v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided February 27, 2013No. 10-1279-STA-egbPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*513ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
S. THOMAS ANDERSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. # 41) filed on June 8, 2012. Plaintiff Charles Reed has filed a response in opposition (D.E. #44), Defendant has filed a reply (D.E. #52), and both parties have filed additional briefs. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART. As more fully explained below, the parties are ordered to file supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs claim for failure to promote under a…
2Cases cited48 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
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reed v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2013