CourtCases2010

Proof of causation may depend on three types of

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: . WAL-MART STORES, INC United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Edward L. WALSH, Appellant v. WAL MART STORES INC. No. 05-3584. Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Sept. 29, 2006. Filed Oct. 2, 2006. Background: Terminated employee sued employer under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for retaliation. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Maurice B. Cohill, J., entered summary judgment for employer. Employee appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Restani, J., held that: (1) employee's termination was not causally linked to letter he wrote to employee's corporate headquarters alleging discrimination, and (2) employer's proffered reasons for terminating employee were not pretextual. Affirmed. Store employee's termination was not causally linked to letter he wrote to employee's corporate headquarters alleging discrimination, and termination thus did not constitute retaliation under ADA or ADEA, where such events were separated by eight months, and there was no indication that reprimands and aggressive monitoring of employee arose in response to letter, or that manager who made termination decision knew of letter. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.; Americans with Disabilities Act, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. Employer's proffered reasons for terminating employee, namely sexual harassment complaints against employee, was not pretext for retaliation in violation of ADA or ADEA, where complaints were sufficient to justify immediate termination under employer's sexual harassment policy, and employee's prior progression through employer's disciplinary steps indicated that infraction even less serious than sexual harassment would have been enough to justify termination. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.; Americans with Disabilities Act, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 1...
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