Legal Opinion
Lin v. Rohm and Haas Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 13, 2003No. Civ.A. 02-CV-3612PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOYNER, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, Rohm and Haas Company. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint asserts claims of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and 43 P.S. § 955(d); defamation; false light invasion of privacy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and breach of contract. For the reasons that follow, we will grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part and deny the Motion in part.
Factual Background
The following is a brief overview of the facts.…
2Cases cited31 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
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mzamane v. WinfreyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Bender v. Norfolk Southern Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Bernstein v. Village of Wesley HillsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Banka v. Columbia Broadcasting Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Lin v. Rohm & Haas Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.