Legal Opinion
Acosta v. Idaho Falls Sch. Dist. No. 91
District Court, D. Idaho
Decided December 6, 2017No. Case No. 4:15–cv–00019–BLWPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtB. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 44) filed by Defendant Idaho Falls School District (the "District"). Plaintiff R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor (the "Secretary"), opposes the Motion. The Court heard oral argument on August 10, 2017 and ordered supplemental briefing, which was completed on August 16, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
*1165BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2011, Penny Weymiller filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Secretary of Labor, alleging that the District retaliated against her for raising…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Taylor v. SturgellSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cannon v. Austal USA LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
- Nathan David Wilson, Seamus James Wilson, and Rory Douglas Wilson v. City of Moscow, et. al.District Court, D. Idaho · 2025
- Walsh v. Community Health Center of Richmond, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2022