Legal Opinion
enders/maden v. Super Fresh
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided January 27, 2009No. Civil Action 05-669-JJFPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FARNAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment. (D.I. 43.) For the reasons discussed, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2005, Plaintiff Judy Enders/Maden, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendant Super Fresh pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., alleging gender discrimination and sexual harassment. (D.I. 2.) Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, in a discriminatory manner, terminated her employment,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- 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
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.