Pipitone v. United States

OPINION and ORDER

NORGLE, District Judge.

Before the court are cross motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 8) is granted and Plaintiffs’ motion (Doe. No. 13) is denied.

I.BACKGROUND

This is a tax refund action. From December 1981 until January 1995, Plaintiff Andrew Pipitone (“Pipitone”) was an at-will employee in the claims department of CNA Insurance Companies (“CNA”). His title was “Vice-President Claims Legal Services.” On January 13, 1995, CNA terminated Pipitone; he was 49 years old at the time.

In connection with his termination, Pipi-tone and…