Meyers v. Indianapolis Public Schools Board of School Commissioners, 1:13-cv-02039-SEB-TAB (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20160909r03
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2016
Summary: ENTRY SARAH EVANS BARKER , District Judge . The Court directs the attention of all counsel in the above-captioned causes to the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 15-2574, 2016 WL 4411434 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016), which "overrules two lines of cases in this circuit," and thereby significantly alters the analytical framework for addressing and resolving motions for summary judgment in employment discrimination cases. In light of this major shift in
Summary: ENTRY SARAH EVANS BARKER , District Judge . The Court directs the attention of all counsel in the above-captioned causes to the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 15-2574, 2016 WL 4411434 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016), which "overrules two lines of cases in this circuit," and thereby significantly alters the analytical framework for addressing and resolving motions for summary judgment in employment discrimination cases. In light of this major shift in ..
More
ENTRY
SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.
The Court directs the attention of all counsel in the above-captioned causes to the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 15-2574, 2016 WL 4411434 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016), which "overrules two lines of cases in this circuit," and thereby significantly alters the analytical framework for addressing and resolving motions for summary judgment in employment discrimination cases. In light of this major shift in Seventh Circuit precedent, the movants' pending motions and briefings seeking summary judgment in these actions are hereby stayed (and will be administratively closed on the Court's docket) pending the filing of substituted submissions that omit discussion of or reliance on the concepts of "convincing mosaics" and "direct" and "indirect" evidence, in order to comply with the Ortiz decision. Movants are granted 30 days within which to file their substituted motions. Respondents shall have 30 days to file their responses. Movants shall then have 15 days to file their replies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
