Hendricks v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.
District Court, D. Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SAFFELS, Senior District Judge.
This age discrimination matter is before the court on defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28). Plaintiff has filed a memorandum Response in opposition to defendant’s motion (Doc. 30). Defendant has filed a Reply (Doc. 31). For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The following facts are uneontroverted or, where controverted, construed in a manner most favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party.
Plaintiff, Larry Hendricks, was employed by defendant Mid-America Pipeline…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rinearson v. Fort Wayne Community SchoolsDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2019