Legal Opinion
London v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided January 30, 2007No. 3:05CV00663 (JBA)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. # 15]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Haywood London (“London”) seeks damages for age discrimination against defendant Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (“Sikorsky”) under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. GemStat. §§ 46a-60, et seq. Defendant removed this case from Connecticut Superior Court claiming federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (See Notice of Removal [Doc. # 1] at 1-2.) Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 15], in which defendant argues that: 1) plaintiffs…
2Cases cited18 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
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- McLeod v. Verizon New York, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Shields v. United Van Lines, LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021