CourtCases2010

Civil rights act of 1964 703a1 42 usca 2000e 2a1

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: or a full trial is necessary." Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d, § 1368 pp. 248-51 (2004). Because the majority believes that the case can be resolved on the pleadings alone, I respectfully dissent. C.A.6 (Ohio),2006. Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center 453 F.3d 757, 98 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 673, 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,443, 2006 Fed.App. 0252P Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) • 04-3776 (Docket) (Jun. 14, 2004) END OF DOCUMENT 162 Case # 19 HENDERSON vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC United States District Court, D. Connecticut. Lisa HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., et al., Defendant. No. 3:03cv2176(DJS). Dec. 8, 2006. Background: Former employee brought action under Title VII and § 1981 alleging that her employer discriminated against her because of her gender and race. Employer moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Squatrito, J., held that: (1) other female employees' statements did not constitute nonhearsay, and (2) decision to terminate female employee was not pretext for gender discrimination. Motion granted. Motion to strike is appropriate if documents submitted in support of motion for summary judgment contain inadmissible hearsay or conclusory statements, are incomplete, or have not been properly authenticated. One female employee's statement that she was discharged because she was woman and another female employee's statement that their supervisor had "problem with women" were not admissible in another female employee's employment discrimination suit as nonhearsay statements of employer's agents, where statements were not made in employees' official capacities, but rather were their opinions about circumstances surrounding their own impending terminations. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 801(d)(2)(D), 28 U.S.C.A. Female employee's warnings to another female employee "to beware because they were getting rid of the woman in the company and [she] would be next" did not fall wit...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online