Legal Opinion
Moore v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, N.D. Georgia
Decided February 1, 1979No. Civ. A. 76-1041PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
RICHARD C. FREEMAN, District Judge.
This is an action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 [hereinafter “ADEA”], 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The plaintiffs allege that they were discharged or forced to accept early retirement by defendant Sears, Roebuck & Company in violation of Section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). 1 The case is presently before the court on Sears’ motion for summary judgment 2 against plaintiffs Anderson, Kelley, Nesbitt, Bowen, Baker, and Moore. 3 For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the motion as to all of the plaintiffs.
The…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Barnes v. GenCorp Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Rayford C. PACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Williams v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Stanojev v. Ebasco Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- Rock v. Massachusetts Commission Against DiscriminationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.