Legal Opinion
Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 4, 2002No. 00 CIV 4631 CMPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING THE MOTION IN PART
McMAHON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Ruth Hill sues the Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office (“Taconic DDSO”), and her supervisors David Sucato, Dan McNeil and Katherine Bainer, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 2000e et. seq. (“Title VII”) and New York Executive Law § 296 for employment discrimination based on her race.
Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On a motion for summary judgment,…
2Cases cited53 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
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Little v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Dabney v. Christmas Tree ShopsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Preuss v. Kolmar Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Evans v. Port Authority of New York and New JerseyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New JerseyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.