Legal Opinion
Krish v. Connecticut Ear, Nose & Throat, Sinus & Allergy Specialists, P.C.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided March 13, 2009No. 3:08-cv-01015PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT THREE OF PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 18)
JANET C. HALL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Elaine A. Krish, Nancy Maxim, and Phyllis Angelicola bring claims against defendant Connecticut Ear, Nose & Throat, Sinus & Allergy Specialists, P.C. (“CENTSAS”), alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a-60(a)(l). CENTSAS has moved to dismiss Count Three of plaintiffs’ Amended…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Kassner v. 2nd Avenue Delicatessen Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Hill v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Foster v. Humane Society of Rochester & Monroe County, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2010
- Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court AdministrationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.