Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 64.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 445 Words, 2,825 Characters
Page Size: 613 x 789 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9765/113.pdf

Download Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut ( 64.3 kB)


Preview Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cv—01 124-WIG Document 1 13 Filed 06/20/2005 Page 1 of 3
" THE IJNTYED STATES DISTRICT COURT
;: DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
»•·=1==r~¤•==ss==;==a¤=•=¤l=a==t=»i==•==¢==t==1==l¤=z¤»¢=1»
=l=
l DENISE EVARTS, *
Plaintiff *
` »•=
v. * CIV. ACTION NO, 3:O0CVl12»4(ICH}
E x=
I TEH5 SOUTHERN NEW *
ENGLAND TELEPHONE *
` COMPANY, *
at
Defendant. * JUNE 20, 2005
_ *
>t==i==s<=•=*=•=s==l==1==·1==l==1==t==l<=¢=¤•<=t==t>1==•= =s
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant, The Southern
New England Telephone Company ("SNET"), hereby moves that summary jud gment enter in its favor
on plaintiffs single—eount Complaint in this case.
`· As set forth in SNE'l"s Memorandum ot`Law in Support of Motion for Summary Iudgment
being filed on this same date, there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning plaintiff s claims.
Plaintiffs claims of disparate treatment and/or gendenbased hostile work environment fail as a matter
I of law because (E) many ofthe events about which plaintiff complains are time—ban·e cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on the record of this eas, (3) pfaintitl? did
not snfer an adverse employment action; and (4) there is no material issue of fact that plaintiff was
subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of state or federal law.
ORAL ARGUMENTIS NOT REQUESTED

Case 3:00-cv—01124-WIG Document 113 Filed 06/20/2005 Page 2 of 3
A Memorandum of Law in Support of Det`endant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Loca]
Ruie S6{a) Statement in Support ot`Defende.¤t’s Motion for Summaxy Judgment, and an Appendix
of Exhibits in Support of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment have been died on this same
. date. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum ofiavv, summeryjudgment should
be granted and judgment entered in favor ofthe defendant.
THE BEFENDANT,
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE, INC.
2 3 é?
By reilee-’”
Lori B. Aiexander
Federal Bar No. CT08970
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn, LLP
205 Church Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06509
Tel. (203) 784-8200
.- Fax No. (203) 789-2133
E~Mail; [email protected]
2

Case 3:00-ov—01 124-WIG Document 1 13 Filed 06/20/2005 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFTCATE OF S}lRVI.CE
This is ze eertiiiz that a copy ofthe foregoing was seat via first—eEass mei}, pestage prepaid te
all ceunsei endpm se parties ofreeord ee this 20th day oflune, 2005, as foilewsz Karen Lee Terre,
Esquire, Lew OfHces ofliaren Lee Torre, Sl Elm Street, Suite 307, New Haven, Cezmeetieut 06510.
;,§Qe· :5%%
Leii B. Aiexander
· Federal Be: No. CT08970
3