Legal Opinion
Green v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided January 29, 2002No. 1:01-cv-00060PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
SINGAL, District Judge.
Plaintiff sued her former employer for discriminating against her because she was pregnant. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 5). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.
I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
A party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the party prevails as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is “genuine” if a rational jury making all reasonable inferences could resolve it in favor of either party. See,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Smith v. F.W. Morse Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Triangle Trading Co. v. Robroy Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dressler v. Community Service Communications, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2003
- Davis v. Emery Worldwide Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 2003
- Andrews v. AMERICAN RED CROSS BLOOD SERVICESDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2003
- Dykstra v. First Student, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2004
- Johnson v. SCHOOL UNION, 107District Court, D. Maine · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.