Summary
stating that courts have held that "without, e.g., accompanying suggestions of age-animus, such inquiries [into employees' retirement planning] are not inherently evidence of pretext"
Summary of this case from Purnell v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist.Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-386
11-25-2019
GLEN SANDUSKY, Plaintiff, v. THE HDH GROUP, INC., Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
On October 8, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 61) recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) be granted. Service of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") was made on the parties, Plaintiff has filed Objections and Defendant has filed a Response to Plaintiff's Objections. See Docs. 62 and 63.
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the Objections and Response thereto, the following Order is entered:
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the R&R is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. November 25, 2019
s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge cc (via ECF email notification): All Counsel of Record