Legal Opinion
Hogan v. Metromail
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 9, 2000No. 99 CIV. 11204 VMPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
MARRERO, District Judge.
Plaintiffs John Hogan and Stuart Rosen (“Hogan and Rosen”) bring this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621; the New York Executive Law §§ 290 et seq. (“State HRL”); the New York City Administrative Code §§ 8-107(l)(a) and (c), and 8-107(17) (“City HRL”); and § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Defendants Metro-mail, Experian Marketing Solutions, and Metromail Corporation Special Severance Plan (“the Plan”) (collectively “Metro-mail”) have moved under…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Niedermeier v. Office of BaucusDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2001
- In Re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities, Derivative, & Erisa LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Dean v. Westchester County District Attorney's OfficeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power LaboratoryDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2002
- Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer PlanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.