Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Mendillo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.

    156 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D. Conn. 2016)   Cited 32 times
    Adopting and applying the retaliation analysis of an earlier ADA claim to an FMLA claim

    I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must accept nonmovant's evidence as true and view the record in the light most favorable to her. SeeWeinstock v. Columbia Univ. , 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir.2000) ; Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc. , No. 3:03–cv–1114, 2005 WL 293493, at *2, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1692, at *5 (D.Conn. Feb. 4, 2005).Born in 1962, Ms. Mendillo began working at American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation (“Skandia”) in or about April 1996. Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement [Doc. No. 69-24] ¶¶ 1-2.

  2. Oyelola v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.

    No. 12-cv-01685 (VAB) (D. Conn. Dec. 17, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must accept nonmovant's evidence as true and view the record in the light most favorable to him. See Weinstock, 224 F.3d at 41; Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-1114, 2005 WL 293493, at *2, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1692, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 4, 2005). The following is a recitation of the facts of this case, according to this standard.

  3. Baxter v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.

    259 F.R.D. 336 (N.D. Ill. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    See 49 U.S.C. § 32710(b); Byrne v. Autohaus On Edens, Inc., 488 F.Supp. 276, 280 (N.D.Ill.1980); Emonds v. Newman Chrysler, Inc., 2005 WL 293493 *2 (D.Conn. Feb. 4, 2005); Carrasco v. Fiore Enter., 985 F.Supp. 931, 935-39 (D.Ariz.1997). Plaintiff's action was filed on November 30, 2007.