Legal Opinion
Lajeunesse v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., INC.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided August 31, 2001No. CIV.A. 399CV01630AWTPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THOMPSON, District Judge.
The plaintiff, David Lajeunesse, has alleged that the defendants wrongfully terminated his employment. The defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all claims. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is being granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (“A & P”) owns and operates grocery stores throughout the United States and Canada. Defendant Waldbaum’s is a subsidiary of A & P, and operates a number of grocery stores in and around the New England area, including in…
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
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Carol A. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Limited Partnership, Doing Business as Prudential Relocation ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Barnes v. Northwest Iowa Health CenterDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2002
- Brown v. Farmland Foods, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2001
- Rieger v. Orlor, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
- MILLAGA v. City of Sioux CityDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2003
- Wordekemper v. Western Iowa Homes & Equipment, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.