LAROCHELLE v. WILMAC CORPORATION et al

Filing 114

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 9/27/16. 9/28/16 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARY LAROCHELLE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. WILMAC CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. : : : : CIVIL ACTION : : 12-CV-5567 : : : ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2016, upon consideration of defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67), plaintiffs’ responses thereto (Doc. Nos. 76, 77, 84, 85), defendants’ statements of undisputed facts (Doc. Nos. 64-2, 65-2, 66-2, 67-2), plaintiffs’ counter-statements of undisputed facts (Doc. Nos. 76-2, 771, 84-2, 85-4), and the parties’ reply and sur-reply briefs (Doc. Nos. 90, 91, 93, 94, 102, 103, 107, 108), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are DENIED as to: (1) plaintiff Mary LaRochelle’s Title VII retaliation claim; (2) plaintiff Nicole Vasquez’s Title VII retaliation claim; and (3) plaintiff Emilia Shearer’s ADA retaliation claim. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to all other claims. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?