Legal Opinion
Van Slyke v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided September 18, 2000No. CIV.A.WMN-98-2791PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
NICKERSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 84). 1 The motion is ripe for decision. Upon a review of the motion and the applicable case law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary (Local Rule 105.6) and that Defendant’s motion will be granted.
1. BACKGROUND
This Title VII action arises out of Plaintiffs employment as an engineer at Northrop Grumman Corporation (Northrop). Plaintiff has been employed at Northrop, or its predecessor, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, since 1978. 2 Plaintiff claims that she was…
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 by15 opinions
- Davenport v. MarylandDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2014
- Crockett v. SRA InternationalDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
- Tasciyan v. MEDICAL NUMERICSDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2011
- Karim v. Staples, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Coles v. Carilion ClinicDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.