Sarah M. Cipriano, Jeune M. Miller v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of North Tonawanda, New York

968 F.2d 1502, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15605, 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,611
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 1992
Docket1680
StatusPublished

This text of 968 F.2d 1502 (Sarah M. Cipriano, Jeune M. Miller v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of North Tonawanda, New York) 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
Sarah M. Cipriano, Jeune M. Miller v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of North Tonawanda, New York, 968 F.2d 1502, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15605, 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,611 (2d Cir. 1992).

Opinion

968 F.2d 1502

59 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,611, 76 Ed. Law Rep. 354

Sarah M. CIPRIANO, Jeune M. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY
OF NORTH TONAWANDA, NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1680, Docket 91-9050.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued June 15, 1992.
Decided June 30, 1992.

Christopher G. Mackaronis, Washington, D.C. (Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Washington, D.C., David G. Jay, Buffalo, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Edward C. Cosgrove, Buffalo, N.Y. (Judith Blake Manzella, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before: MESKILL and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Curtin, J., dismissing on summary judgment plaintiffs' Age Discrimination in Employment Act suit. Plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that the district court erred by requiring a showing that the early retirement incentive plan that they challenged discriminated in a non-fringe aspect of the employment relationship. We disagree. See Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 109 S.Ct. 2854, 106 L.Ed.2d 134 (1989).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Curtin's opinion. Cipriano v. Board of Education, 772 F.Supp. 1346 (W.D.N.Y.1991).

*

Hon. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., United States District Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation

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

Related

Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts
492 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Cipriano v. Board of Education
968 F.2d 1502 (Second Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
968 F.2d 1502, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15605, 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarah-m-cipriano-jeune-m-miller-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-school-ca2-1992.