Lyle v. Cato Corporation, The

Filing 34

ORDER: For the reasons explained in the Memorandum issued contemporaneously herewith, the Motion for Summary Judgment 17 filed by Defendant The Cato Corporation is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Pla intiff's retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101 et seq., but DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim under those statutes. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 7/28/10. (dt)

Lyle v. Cato Corporation, The

Doc. 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION JILRIALE LYLE, Plaintiff, v. THE CATO CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 3:09-0333 Judge Echols

ORDER For the reasons explained in the Memorandum issued contemporaneously herewith, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 17) filed by Defendant The Cato Corporation is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101 et seq., but DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim under those statutes. It is so ORDERED. _______________________________ ROBERT L. ECHOLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dockets.Justia.com