Legal Opinion

Angione v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided July 29, 2016No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-1049 (VLB)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP. AND ARNOLD HANAFIN CORP.’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. ## 53, 541

Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Michael Angione (“Angione”) brings a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., against Defendants Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (“Sikorsky”) and Arnold Hanafin Corp. (“Arnold”) (collectively the “Employer Defendants”). The Employer Defendants have each moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motions are GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

Defendant…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brandon McKerchie v. Kokosing Alberici Traylor, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2026
  2. Harvey v. GreenwichDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API