Moss v. Stinnes Corp.

Second Circuit

Moss v. Stinnes Corp.

169 F.3d 784, 1999 WL 118205

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

DocketDocket No. 97-9450

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 169 F.3d 784 (Moss v. Stinnes Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moss v. Stinnes Corp., 169 F.3d 784, 1999 WL 118205 (2d Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Peter D. Moss, appearing pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, /.), denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion to intervene in his wife Barbara M. Moss’s action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law (“HRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.

We hold, as have all other courts that have considered the question, that neither the ADEA nor the HRL affords a direct cause of action to a non-employee due to discrimination against his spouse. Moreover, neither statute provides for a claim for loss of consortium. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying intervention for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Moss v. Stinnes Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3788,1997 WL 530113 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1997); see also Moss v. Stinnes Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3788, 1993 WL 33591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 1993).

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Peter D. Moss, appearing pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, /.), denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion to intervene in his wife Barbara M. Moss’s action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law (“HRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.

We hold, as have all other courts that have considered the question, that neither the ADEA nor the HRL affords a direct cause of action to a non-employee due to discrimination against his spouse. Moreover, neither statute provides for a claim for loss of consortium. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying intervention for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Moss v. Stinnes Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3788,1997 WL 530113 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1997); see also Moss v. Stinnes Corp., No. 92 Civ. 3788, 1993 WL 33591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 1993).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F.3d 784, 1999 WL 118205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-stinnes-corp-ca2-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack