Legal Opinion

Harcourt v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided August 18, 2005No. 1:02-mj-00283PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

BECKWITH, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (Doc. No. 66) and Plaintiffs Kelly Harcourt, Paula White, and Phillip Don-nelly (Doc. No. 69). For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is well-taken and is GRANTED.

I. Background

Plaintiffs in this case are current or former employees of Defendant Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (“CBT”) who claim that CBT’s administration of its medical leave…

2Cases cited28 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. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Novak v. MetroHealth Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  2. Andrews v. CSX Transportation, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2010
  3. Matson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2019
  4. Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
  5. Walters v. PRIDE AMBULANCE CO.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API