Legal Opinion

Sudimak v. Pillus

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 30, 1995No. Civ. A. 91-1167PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

VANASKIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Maria Sudimak has moved for a new trial on her retaliatory discharge claim against Dorr-OIiver Incorporated (“Dorr-OI-iver”) under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 951, et seq. Ms. Sudimak contends that, in light of the jury’s affirmative response to the special verdict question of whether she had “met her burden of proving that Dorr-Oliver’s stated reason for terminating her was not true,” the jury’s negative answer to whether Ms. Sudi-mak had “met her burden of proving that the determinative factor in the decision to…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Luis A. Fuentes v. Steven P. Perskie, Chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission the New Jersey Casino Control CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  5. Andrews v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Murphy (In Re Selheimer & Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API