Berry

Berry v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

Good Law
744 F. Supp. 214·1990 WL 128366·52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1100·55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,352·1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9918
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1990CV 89-3180-RSWLCalifornia1,114 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lew, J.

ORDER

Defendant in the above captioned action has moved for summary judgment on the ground that this action is barred because plaintiff failed to file an administrative charge within 300 days of the alleged wrongful termination as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626 (d). Plaintiff timely opposed the motion. The matter was set for oral argument on February 26,1990 at 9:00 a.m. After review of the papers filed, the Court determined that all of the issues had been adequately briefed and removed the matter from the Court’s law and motion calendar pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. Now having again reviewed all of the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court hereby issues the following order:

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and summary judgment is hereby rendered in defendant’s favor with respect to the entire action.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, born on June 6, 1942, is a former employee of defendant. The complaint alleges that defendant terminated plaintiff on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

Plaintiff was terminated on December 1, 1986. Plaintiff filed an administrative…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.