Legal Opinion
Coleman v. Prudential Relocation
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided August 25, 1997No. 6:95-cv-06430PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
LARIMER, Chief Judge.
These five actions were commenced by five individual plaintiffs against defendant Prudential Relocation (“Prudential”). All five actions arise out of a reduction in force (“RIF”) at Prudential in January 1995, which resulted in the termination of plaintiffs’ employment. Plaintiffs allege that they were terminated on account of their age and for other discriminatory reasons. Prudential has moved for summary judgment. Because these cases involve many of the same facts and legal issues, for purposes of this Decision and Order I am consolidating these cases…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme 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
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Schreiber v. WORLDCO, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Wado v. Xerox Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1998
- Pronin v. Raffi Custom Photo Lab., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Murphy v. Board of Education of the Rochester City School DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2003
- Claudio v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.