Legal Opinion
Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided March 10, 1998No. CIV. B-85-481 (WWE)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
EGINTON, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff, Arthur Hollander, brought this action against his former employer, defendant American Cyanamid Company (“Cyan-amid”), asserting claims for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., retaliation and tortious interference with a business expectancy. On March 23, 1989, this court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant as to plaintiffs claims for age discrimination and retaliation. On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated that ruling in part, on the narrow…
2Cases cited20 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
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Arthur Hollander v. American Cyanamid CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Aref v. HolderDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Barlow v. ConnecticutDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2004
- Spector v. Experian Information Services Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2004
- Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, Inc. v. FischerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.