Breen v. Mineta
This text of Breen v. Mineta (Breen v. Mineta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________ ) KATHLEEN BREEN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-0654 (PLF) ) ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF ) TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., 1 ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 256] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claim under the ADEA, see First
Amended Class Action Complaint ¶ 49; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs’ disparate impact claim under the ADEA, see First
Amended Class Action Complaint ¶ 50; and it is
1 The First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 3] names Norman Y. Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation, as one of the party defendants. The Court substitutes his most recent successor, Elaine L. Chao, pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered for defendants on plaintiffs’
disparate impact claim.
SO ORDERED.
/s/________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN DATE: May 26, 2017 United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Breen v. Mineta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breen-v-mineta-dcd-2017.