Legal Opinion

Hickle v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided November 2, 2017No. Case No.: 2:15–cv–03068PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James StephensCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
  4. Staub v. Proctor HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. 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

  1. Jared Hickle v. Am. Multi-CinemaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
  2. Jared Hickle v. Am. Multi-CinemaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
  3. Kim J. McElroy v. VitalantDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API