Hickle v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
*881This matter is before the Court upon the Motion of Defendant American Multi-Cinema, Inc. ("AMC") for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02. (Doc. 32). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, AMC's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART .
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff's employment with AMC
Plaintiff Jared Hickle began employment with AMC in 2004, initially as part of the "film crew" staff, and then…
2Cases cited21 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
- Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James StephensCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
- Staub v. Proctor HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- James P. Smith v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jared Hickle v. Am. Multi-CinemaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- Jared Hickle v. Am. Multi-CinemaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- Kim J. McElroy v. VitalantDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025