Beall v. Robinson Exports and Import Corporation

D. Delaware

Beall v. Robinson Exports and Import Corporation

District Court, D. Delaware·Decided September 23, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-01211·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SUSAN BEALL,

Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 23-1211-CFC ROBINSON EXPORT AND IMPORT CORPORATION and REICO KITCHEN AND BATH,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before me is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Robinson Export and Import Corporation and Reico Kitchen and Bath. D.I. 88. In their concise statement of material undisputed facts filed in support of their motion, Defendants state that “[o]n February 11, 2022, Rizzi met with [Plaintiff] at Reico’s Wilmington store with Espil participating by video conference to further discuss the problem of [Plaintiff] continuing to be late for work and miss [sic] work without notifying Rizzi.” DJ. 90 921. Plaintiff disputes this fact and says that the meeting was “focused on addressing issues related to her work schedule and the resulting animosity among her coworkers.” D.I. 94921. Plaintiff cites record

evidence that appears on its face to support her statement. D.I. 90-1 at 116:5—-18, 117:3-8. Because there is a disputed fact that Defendants have said is material to their motion for summary judgment, I will deny the motion. See Anderson vy. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (holding that summary judgment will not lie if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact). NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Twenty-third day of September in 2025, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 88) is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SUSAN BEALL,

Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 23-1211-CFC ROBINSON EXPORT AND IMPORT CORPORATION and REICO KITCHEN AND BATH,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before me is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Robinson Export and Import Corporation and Reico Kitchen and Bath. D.I. 88. In their concise statement of material undisputed facts filed in support of their motion, Defendants state that “[o]n February 11, 2022, Rizzi met with [Plaintiff] at Reico’s Wilmington store with Espil participating by video conference to further discuss the problem of [Plaintiff] continuing to be late for work and miss [sic] work without notifying Rizzi.” DJ. 90 921. Plaintiff disputes this fact and says that the meeting was “focused on addressing issues related to her work schedule and the resulting animosity among her coworkers.” D.I. 94921. Plaintiff cites record

evidence that appears on its face to support her statement. D.I. 90-1 at 116:5—-18, 117:3-8. Because there is a disputed fact that Defendants have said is material to their motion for summary judgment, I will deny the motion. See Anderson vy. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (holding that summary judgment will not lie if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact). NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Twenty-third day of September in 2025, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 88) is DENIED.

Beall v. Robinson Exports and Import Corporation, (D. Del. 2025).

Pincite

Beall v. Robinson Exports and Import Corporation (Beall v. Robinson Exports and Import Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related