Motions for summary judgment in federal court are oftentimes one of the most over-utilized tools in employment discrimination litigation. Over the years, this column has lamented the overuse of employer-based motions for summary judgment. In fact, one federal judge has even advocated for abolishing the use of summary judgment altogether in employment cases. (See “Time to Abolish Summary Judgment in Employment Law Cases?” published July 26, 2013, in The Legal.)
In the most recent installment of the summary judgment roulette wheel, a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania emphasizes the virtual exercise in futility that is the employer’s motion for summary judgment. In the matter of Henry v. Acme, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29437 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2014), the plaintiff, John Henry, filed suit against his former employer, Acme Markets Inc., alleging that he was unlawfully terminated based upon his age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
