Legal Opinion

Baker v. Emery Worldwide

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 28, 1991No. CA89-1387PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEE, District Judge.

In her Complaint, the plaintiff, Patricia A. Baker, brought discrimination claims against the defendant, Emery Purolator (Purolator), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 951. Plaintiff alleges defendant’s decision not to hire her as a courier constitutes discrimination in that Purolator engaged in unlawful retaliation and sex discrimination in making its employment decisions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims to have been sexually harassed by…

2Cases cited20 opinions

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
Andrews v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by2 opinions

Dungee v. Northeast Foods, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
Conway v. Hercules Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1993