Legal Opinion
Town v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 31, 1997No. Docket Nos. 102845, 103476, Calender Nos. 10-11PublishedCited by 141 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrickley, J.
The issue presented in these consolidated cases is whether the plaintiffs, McConnell and Town, have presented sufficient evidence of age or sex discrimination to surmount a motion for summary disposition and a motion for a directed verdict, respectively. We conclude in both cases that the plain*692tiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that discrimination had been a determining factor in their employers’ decisions.
i
McCONNELL v. ROLLINS BURDICK HUNTER
In July of 1988, Ted McConnell accepted a job as a sales representative with Rollins Burdick Hunter (rbh). Rbh sold health insurance and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Luis A. Fuentes v. Steven P. Perskie, Chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission the New Jersey Casino Control CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Combs v. Plantation PatternsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by141 opinions
- Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
- Lytle v. MaladyMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
136 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.