SCHWARTZ v. NICOMATIC, INC., 17-2516. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20171228d74
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARK A. KEARNEY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 27 th day of December 2017, upon considering Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (ECF Doc. No. 23), Plaintiff's Response (ECF Doc. No. 24) Defendants' Reply (ECF Doc. No. 31) and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED Defendants' Motion (ECF Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: 1. We grant summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims u
Summary: ORDER MARK A. KEARNEY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 27 th day of December 2017, upon considering Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (ECF Doc. No. 23), Plaintiff's Response (ECF Doc. No. 24) Defendants' Reply (ECF Doc. No. 31) and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED Defendants' Motion (ECF Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: 1. We grant summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims un..
More
ORDER
MARK A. KEARNEY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 27th day of December 2017, upon considering Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (ECF Doc. No. 23), Plaintiff's Response (ECF Doc. No. 24) Defendants' Reply (ECF Doc. No. 31) and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED Defendants' Motion (ECF Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
1. We grant summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims under Title VII, disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act and interference/retaliation claim under the Family Medical Leave Act as there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment in Plaintiff's favor on these claims; and,
2. We deny summary judgment on Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim as there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether her complaints of gender discrimination motivated the Defendants terminating her employment.
Source: Leagle
