Legal Opinion
Brandrup v. Starkey
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided September 8, 1998No. CIV. 97-1208-KIPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff Sarah Brandrup sues defendants Walter Thomas Starkey and Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (“Lattice”) for sexual discrimination, under federal and Oregon law, as well as for wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oregon law. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment (# 17) against all of plaintiffs claims. For the reasons set forth below, I grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motion.
Also before the court are plaintiffs motions to reopen discovery (# 39-1), to compel discovery (# 39-2), and for sanctions…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Faragher v. City of Boca RatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. EllerthSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Phyllis Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc., Dba Maxwell's Plum, Debtor in Possession Carlo Galazzo, Gen. Mgt., Dino La Rosa Don Bohn Don SchupakCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. Horning Bros., LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2018
- Miller v. Woodharbor Molding & Millworks, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2000