Legal Opinion
Purnell v. Maryland
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided March 18, 2004No. CIV. RDB-02-3078PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BENNETT, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant State of Maryland’s (“Defendant” or the “State”) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Plaintiff Ruby Purnell’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Purnell”) Complaint. The issues have been fully briefed by the parties, and oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.2001). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme 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
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Commission and Jermaine StapletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
- Martin v. Merck & Co., Inc.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2006
- Amended August 2, 2017 Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Commission and Jermaine StapletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
- Brent Harewood v. Brian Albert, et al.District Court, D. Maryland · 2026
- Kenion v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.