From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gladysiewski v. Allegheny Energy Service Corporation

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 11, 2007
2:05cv992 Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2007)

Summary

finding that defendant's failure to follow through with promised training did not support pretext argument but only led to the inference that defendant, for whatever reason, did not provide all the promised support, not that it was unimportant for plaintiff to meet the company's expectations as outlined in the action plan

Summary of this case from Jones v. Polk Center

Opinion

2:05cv992 Electronic Filing.

April 11, 2007


MEMORANDUM ORDER


AND NOW, this 5Th day of April, 2007, after the Plaintiff, Todd Gladysiewski, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after Defendant, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties ten days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and objections having been filed by Plaintiff, and upon independent review of the motion and the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment submitted on behalf of the Defendant, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the parties desire to appeal from this Order they must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed.R.App.P.


Summaries of

Gladysiewski v. Allegheny Energy Service Corporation

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 11, 2007
2:05cv992 Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2007)

finding that defendant's failure to follow through with promised training did not support pretext argument but only led to the inference that defendant, for whatever reason, did not provide all the promised support, not that it was unimportant for plaintiff to meet the company's expectations as outlined in the action plan

Summary of this case from Jones v. Polk Center
Case details for

Gladysiewski v. Allegheny Energy Service Corporation

Case Details

Full title:TODD GLADYSIEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 11, 2007

Citations

2:05cv992 Electronic Filing (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2007)

Citing Cases

Jones v. Polk Center

See Affidavit, Exhibits behind p. 3. Plaintiff's perception that her training was inadequate and/or…

Hodges v. Rensselaer Hartford Graduate Center, Inc.

Several courts have held that there is "no reason why the same reasoning should not apply to age…