Legal Opinion

Axel v. Apfel

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided September 11, 2000No. WMN 97-1614Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

NICKERSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 42). 1 Plaintiffs have opposed the motion and Defendant has replied. Upon a review of the pleadings and the applicable case law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary (Local Rule 105.6) and that Defendant’s motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Stanley Axel, Joel Canfield, John R. Love, Joseph P. Murphy, John W. Owen, Jr., and William T. Sheridan bring this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claiming…

2Cases cited34 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. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000

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

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

Powered by the Exa API