Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barbara M. Moss, Peter D. Moss v. Stinnes Corporation Michael Mobeius, President Dr. Hans-Juergen Knauer, Chairman, 97-9450 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 97-9450 Visitors: 84
Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 169 F.3d 784 79 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 704 Barbara M. MOSS, Plaintiff, Peter D. Moss, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STINNES CORPORATION; Michael Mobeius, President; Dr. Hans-Juergen Knauer, Chairman, Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 97-9450. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Jan. 29, 1999. Decided March 08, 1999. Peter D. Moss, Pro Se, Forest Hills, N.Y., for Plaintiff-Appellant. Stanley L. Goodman, Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman, P.A., Roseland, N.J., for Defendants-Appellees. B
More

169 F.3d 784

79 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 704

Barbara M. MOSS, Plaintiff,
Peter D. Moss, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STINNES CORPORATION; Michael Mobeius, President; Dr.
Hans-Juergen Knauer, Chairman, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 97-9450.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 29, 1999.
Decided March 08, 1999.

Peter D. Moss, Pro Se, Forest Hills, N.Y., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stanley L. Goodman, Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman, P.A., Roseland, N.J., for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: NEWMAN, WALKER, and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Plaintiff-appellant Peter D. Moss, appearing pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.), denying plaintiff-appellant's motion to intervene in his wife Barbara M. Moss's action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law ("HRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.

2

We hold, as have all other courts that have considered the question, that neither the ADEA nor the HRL affords a direct cause of action to a non-employee due to discrimination against his spouse. Moreover, neither statute provides for a claim for loss of consortium. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying intervention for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Moss v. Stinnes Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3788, 1997 WL 530113 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1997); see also Moss v. Stinnes Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3788, 1993 WL 33591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 1993).

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer