Jeannine K. Larimer And James Larimer V. Dayton Hudson Corp. Jeannine K. Larimer And James Larimer V. Dayton Hudson Corp.

Jeannine K. Larimer And James Larimer V. Dayton Hudson Corp‪.‬

    • $0.99
    • $0.99

Publisher Description

Jeannine Larimer appeals from the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Dayton Hudson Corporation, the owner of Target Stores, her employer. In her complaint, she alleged that Target failed to promote her on numerous occasions in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act*fn1 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.*fn2 She also brought a state law claim for breach of contract. In addition, Mrs. Larimer's husband, James, brought a state law loss of consortium claim based on all of his wife's claims against Target. We believe the district court correctly determined that summary judgment was appropriate for the discrimination claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to those determinations. However, on the record now before us, we believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Mrs. Larimer's state law contract claim. Accordingly, we remand that claim to the district court for further proceedings.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1998
February 24
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
12
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SELLER
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
SIZE
75.7
KB
Goren V. New Vision International Goren V. New Vision International
1998
Rastafari V. Anderson Rastafari V. Anderson
2002
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson
1998
King V. One Unknown Federal Correctional Officer King V. One Unknown Federal Correctional Officer
2000
Haefling V. United Parcel Service Inc. Haefling V. United Parcel Service Inc.
1999
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Sears Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Sears
2000