Legal Opinion
DeNardo v. Clarence House Imports, Ltd.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided November 21, 1994No. 93 C 5639PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Penelope Jane DeNardo (“De-Nardo”), has brought this suit against her former employer Clarence House Imports, Ltd. (“Clarence House”). DeNardo alleges that Clarence House discharged her because she was pregnant, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. 1 Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is denied in part…
2Cases cited10 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
- Ralph C. SHAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN COMPANY and Asgrow Seed Company, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Arthur S. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brockman v. Avaya, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2008
- Geraci v. Moody-Totturp International, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1995