Legal Opinion
Pierson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 4, 2011No. Civil Action 07-530 (RMU)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the defendant, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”), retaliated against her for making a sexual harassment complaint by: (1) terminating her employment, (2) not rehiring her and (3) sending creditors to harass her for overpaid vacation benefits. The defendant moves for summary judgment with respect to the…
2Cases cited39 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
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Dudley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Mount v. NapolitanoDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Hunter v. District of Columbia GovernmentDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Hicklin, Jr. v. McDonaldDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Dick v. HolderDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.