Legal Opinion
Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided November 28, 1984No. 80 C 3074PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GETZENDANNER, District Judge:
On January 16, 1980, plaintiff E. Kingsley Mull instituted the present action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 626, alleging that ARCO Polymers, defendant’s statutory predecessor, had demoted and forced him into early retirement on account of his age. As discovery progressed, ARCO learned that Mull had been involved in multi-million real estate ventures which had interfered with his performance while working for ARCO. Defendant also learned that Mull had carried on an extensive consulting business on…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Delaware State College v. RicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Bates v. Board of Regents of Northern New Mexico Community CollegeDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 1988
- 40 Fair empl.prac.cas. 311, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,971 E. Kingsley Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc., Successor to Arco Polymers, Inc., and Atlantic Richfield Company, Appeal of Eugene Crane, Bankruptcy Trustee in the Matter of E. Kingsley MullCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986