Legal Opinion
Westphal v. Catch Ball Products Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 18, 1997No. 95 Civ. 9613 (LAK)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KAPLAN, District Judge.
The jury in this case found that defendant Catch Ball Products Corporation (“Catch Bah”) discriminated against plaintiff Keiko Westphal on the basis of age and retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It awarded $45,000 in back pay, $5,000 in compensatory damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages. The Court thereafter awarded front pay in the amount of $92,859. 1 (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Dee. 6,1996) Defendant now moves for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the Court…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Land v. DollarSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,614 the Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Mary COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARROWSMITH SHELBURNE, INC., KDT Industries, Inc., and Clifton Lind, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Julia Prewitt Brown v. Trustees of Boston UniversityCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Lambert v. Genesee HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jennifer Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC and Sanford Pankin, Also Known as Crystal Hills, Docket No. 04-3807 CvCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Klein v. London Star Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Manela v. Garantia Banking Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Argyle Realty Associates v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Naftchi v. New York UniversityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.