Moss v. Stinnes Corp.

169 F.3d 784, 1999 WL 118205
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 8, 1999·No. Docket No. 97-9450·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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

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

169 F.3d 784 (Moss v. Stinnes Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mitchell-Cabreja v. Tantillo
E.D. New York, 2024
Benoit v. Green Mountain Transit
Vermont Superior Court, 2021
Pulizotto v. McMahon
S.D. New York, 2019
Santiago v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District
434 F. Supp. 2d 193 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Acevedo v. Monsignor Donovan High School
420 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. New Jersey, 2006)
Goldman v. MCL Companies of Chicago, Inc.
131 F. Supp. 2d 425 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Kulling v. Grinders for Industry, Inc.
115 F. Supp. 2d 828 (E.D. Michigan, 2000)