Legal Opinion
Davis v. Crescent Electric Supply, Co.
District Court, D. South Dakota
Decided August 5, 2016No. CIV 12-5008PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Defendant Crescent Electric Supply Company’s (“CESCO” or “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Lisa A. Davis (“Davis” or “Plaintiff’). According to Davis, this federal action is based primarily on wage discrimination and retaliation, but “is not a sexual harassment case.” Plaintiffs Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, Doc. 132, at 43-44. Sexual harassment is only relevant here…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- 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
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Faragher v. City of Boca RatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Goodman v. Performance Contractors, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2019
- Rogers v. City of ChattanoogaDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2023