Legal Opinion
Hartzog v. Reebok International Ltd.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 16, 1999No. 99 CIV. 10850(LAK)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KAPLAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this pro se employment discrimination action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, against Reebok International, Ltd. (“Reebok”) and The Rockport Company, Inc. (“Rock-port”). Reebok, which is the parent company of Rockport, employed plaintiff from 1995 until some time in 1997. Rockport subsequently employed him as a retail sales person. He claims that both companies failed to promote him during his employment with each and that Rockport fired and otherwise retaliated against him after…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. D/B/A Tor Books v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. And Saban International N.V.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Paul Jolly v. Thomas Coughlin, Robert Greifinger, John P. Keane, C. Greiner, S. KapoorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Triebwasser & Katz, a Partnership Consisting of Jonah Triebwasser and William Katz v. American Telephone & Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Gens v. Resolution Trust Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hartzog v. Reebok International Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999