19 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,388 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Evans v. Techs. Applications Serv.
80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) Cited 3,191 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim did not relate back to the originally filed charge of sex discrimination
Strag v. Board of Trustees
55 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1995) Cited 672 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that party seeking additional discovery must identify a Rule 56(f) "affidavit presented to the district court that particularly specifie legitimate needs for further discovery."
Barwick v. Celotex Corp.
736 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1984) Cited 921 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff's self-serving affidavit that contradicted his own prior testimony did not create a genuine issue of material fact
Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc.
871 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1989) Cited 778 times
Holding that pretextual reason for firing employee is not established by mere allegation
Orsi v. Kirkwood
999 F.2d 86 (4th Cir. 1993) Cited 511 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the summary judgment stage, documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Rule 56(e)
Gairola v. Com. of Va. Dept. of General Ser
753 F.2d 1281 (4th Cir. 1985) Cited 349 times
Holding that a plaintiff's prima facie case under Title VII cannot be "based on unfounded conjecture or the fanciful possibility that her disfavorable treatment was the result of discrimination"
Malina v. Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co.
18 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D. Md. 1998) Cited 70 times
Civil Action No. Y-97-4309. September 28, 1998. James Charles Strouse, Columbia, MD, for James E. Malina Mark K. Sloane, Baltimore, MD, for Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. MEMORANDUM GRIMM, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff James E. Malina has sued his former employer, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, ("BG E" for alleged age discrimination. Currently pending are the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Paper No. 18), Plaintiff's opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment (Paper No
Pulley v. KPMG Consulting, Inc.
348 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D. Md. 2004) Cited 36 times
Holding that temporal proximity does not establish pretext in the face of a strong legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff's termination
Contracts Materials Processing v. Kataleuna GmbH Catalysts
164 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D. Md. 2001) Cited 15 times
Granting in part and denying in part cross-motions for summary judgment
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,986 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1620.13 - "Equal Work"-What it means
29 C.F.R. § 1620.13 Cited 124 times
Recognizing that application of the equal pay standard is a fact-intensive inquiry that must be determined on a case-by-case basis

Toulan v. DAP, Inc

19 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that the plaintiff's age discrimination claim did not relate back to the originally filed charge of sex discrimination

Holding that party seeking additional discovery must identify a Rule 56(f) "affidavit presented to the district court that particularly specifie legitimate needs for further discovery."

Holding that a plaintiff's self-serving affidavit that contradicted his own prior testimony did not create a genuine issue of material fact

Holding that pretextual reason for firing employee is not established by mere allegation

Holding that at the summary judgment stage, documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Rule 56(e)

Holding that a plaintiff's prima facie case under Title VII cannot be "based on unfounded conjecture or the fanciful possibility that her disfavorable treatment was the result of discrimination"

Holding that temporal proximity does not establish pretext in the face of a strong legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff's termination

Granting in part and denying in part cross-motions for summary judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Recognizing that application of the equal pay standard is a fact-intensive inquiry that must be determined on a case-by-case basis