Legal Opinion
Hemmert v. Quaker Oats Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided December 26, 2000No. C-3-98-336PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION CONDITIONALLY SUSTAINING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #29); FURTHER PROCEDURES ORDERED OF DEFENDANT; THIS DECISION IS NOT A FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER
RICE, Chief Judge.
This litigation stems from Plaintiff John J. Hemmert’s former employment relationship with Defendant Quaker Oats Company (“Quaker”). Following his termination, ostensibly as part of a work-force reduction, Hemmert commenced the present litigation, alleging age discrimination in violation of both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Ohio law. He also alleged intentional infliction of…
2Cases cited30 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
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Long v. Owens CorningDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2002
- Seeds v. LuceroDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2001