Legal Opinion

Peda v. American Home Products Corp.

District Court, N.D. Iowa

Decided June 20, 2002No. C01-3020-MWBPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

[[Image here]]

Because employment discrimination cases so often depend on inferences rather than on direct proof of discrimination, the Supreme Court has fashioned an order of proof and presumptions, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has cautioned against the use of summary judgment, in such cases. Still, “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure…

2Cases cited77 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Holmes-Martin v. LeavittDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
  2. Soto v. John Morrell & Co.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2003
  3. Peda v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2003
  4. Carrie Wright v. Ross Holdings, LLC and Shannon SchmidtCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API