Dorothea O'driscoll, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Hercules Inc., a Delaware Corporation McDonald Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees

Tenth Circuit

Dorothea O'driscoll, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Hercules Inc., a Delaware Corporation McDonald Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees

52 F.3d 294, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7806, 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 732, 1995 WL 150861

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1995

Docket92-4164

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 F.3d 294 (Dorothea O'driscoll, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Hercules Inc., a Delaware Corporation McDonald Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorothea O'driscoll, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Hercules Inc., a Delaware Corporation McDonald Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, 52 F.3d 294, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7806, 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 732, 1995 WL 150861 (10th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter is before the court pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s remand instruction. Plaintiff Dorothea O’Driseoll was employed by Defendant Hercules, Inc. Bacchus Works from January 7, 1980 until she was terminated on April 25, 1986. Upon termination, Plaintiff filed suit against Hercules and others, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, as well as violations of state law including breach of employment contract and wrongful termination.

The district court entered summary judgment against Plaintiff based on the after-acquired evidence defense asserted by Defendant Hercules, relying on Summers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir.1988). See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc. (O’Driscoll I), 745 F.Supp. 656, 660-61 (D.Utah 1990). On appeal, we affirmed. See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc. (O’Driscoll II), 12 F.3d 176, 180-81 (10th Cir.1994). Plaintiff petitioned for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

On January 23, 1995, the Supreme Court largely rejected the after-acquired evidence defense in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995). On February 21, 1995, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs petition for certiorari, vacated our opinion in O’Driscoll II, and remanded for further consideration in light of McKennon. See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1086, 130 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1995).

On March 29, 1995 we issued an order vacating our judgment and recalling the *295 mandate in O’Dñscoll II. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiff in O’Driscoll I and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in McKennon. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

REVERSED.

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

This matter is before the court pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s remand instruction. Plaintiff Dorothea O’Driseoll was employed by Defendant Hercules, Inc. Bacchus Works from January 7, 1980 until she was terminated on April 25, 1986. Upon termination, Plaintiff filed suit against Hercules and others, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, as well as violations of state law including breach of employment contract and wrongful termination.

The district court entered summary judgment against Plaintiff based on the after-acquired evidence defense asserted by Defendant Hercules, relying on Summers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir.1988). See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc. (O’Driscoll I), 745 F.Supp. 656, 660-61 (D.Utah 1990). On appeal, we affirmed. See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc. (O’Driscoll II), 12 F.3d 176, 180-81 (10th Cir.1994). Plaintiff petitioned for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

On January 23, 1995, the Supreme Court largely rejected the after-acquired evidence defense in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995). On February 21, 1995, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs petition for certiorari, vacated our opinion in O’Driscoll II, and remanded for further consideration in light of McKennon. See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1086, 130 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1995).

On March 29, 1995 we issued an order vacating our judgment and recalling the *295 mandate in O’Dñscoll II. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiff in O’Driscoll I and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in McKennon. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

REVERSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F.3d 294, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7806, 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 732, 1995 WL 150861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothea-odriscoll-plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellant-v-hercules-ca10-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack