Legal Opinion
Howell v. Levi Strauss & Co.
District Court, M.D. Georgia
Decided January 4, 1994No. Civ. A. 92-151-VAL (WDO)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
OWENS, Chief Judge.
Before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order.
FACTS
Plaintiff Julia Howell, a black female, was born on January 16, 1946. Plaintiff began work with defendant Levi Strauss & Company’s predecessor on April 20, 1966. From 1966 until 1990, plaintiff worked in the “inseam” position with defendant and its predecessor. In May of 1990, defendant conducted a time study of plaintiff to determine the optimal level of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth DayCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- Busby v. City of OrlandoCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
- George W. NIX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WLCY RADIO/RAHALL COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Howell v. Levi Strauss & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994