_____________________________
Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc.
375 F.3d 35, 2004 U.S. App. 14182
_____________________________
Case Synopsis:
The Plaintiff, Minerva Velez, was awarded summary judgement for her claim of sexual harassment against the Defendants, Awning Windows.
-Here, the Defendants are appealing the judgment.
Facts:
-Plaintiff = employee of Awning Windows.
-Defendant = Awning Windows (owned by Ismael Nieves-Valle).
-P and D had a romantic relationship (affair) until the P ended the relationship.
-Afterwards, Ismael harassed her. Later he fired her in March 2000.
-P filed Title VII claim against D, as well as other Puerto Rican discrimination claims.
-D missed many court imposed deadlines and extensions for filing. This resulted in lower court's granting of partial summary judgment to the P.
-Jury awarded P $750,000.
-D appealed, arguing that the court should have considered their late filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
Issue:
Was the trial court's granting of Plaintiff's movement for summary judgement premature?
Holding:
No, the court allowed the lower court's summary judgment because the Defendants did not timely respond to the P's motion. Nor did the D file an appropriate extension of time under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, explaining why they needed more time.
Rules:
The repeated disregard for deadlines that are imposed by the court will result in an adverse holding, despite the party's later filing to oppose that holding.
Analysis:
-A party should not take court-imposed deadlines lightly.
-Here the court was not forgiving to the habitual late filings and the lack of cooperation by the Defendants.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
Velez v. Awning Windows, Inc.
375 F.3d 35, 2004 U.S. App. 14182
_____________________________
Case Synopsis:
The Plaintiff, Minerva Velez, was awarded summary judgement for her claim of sexual harassment against the Defendants, Awning Windows.
-Here, the Defendants are appealing the judgment.
Facts:
-Plaintiff = employee of Awning Windows.
-Defendant = Awning Windows (owned by Ismael Nieves-Valle).
-P and D had a romantic relationship (affair) until the P ended the relationship.
-Afterwards, Ismael harassed her. Later he fired her in March 2000.
-P filed Title VII claim against D, as well as other Puerto Rican discrimination claims.
-D missed many court imposed deadlines and extensions for filing. This resulted in lower court's granting of partial summary judgment to the P.
-Jury awarded P $750,000.
-D appealed, arguing that the court should have considered their late filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
Issue:
Was the trial court's granting of Plaintiff's movement for summary judgement premature?
Holding:
No, the court allowed the lower court's summary judgment because the Defendants did not timely respond to the P's motion. Nor did the D file an appropriate extension of time under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, explaining why they needed more time.
Rules:
The repeated disregard for deadlines that are imposed by the court will result in an adverse holding, despite the party's later filing to oppose that holding.
Analysis:
-A party should not take court-imposed deadlines lightly.
-Here the court was not forgiving to the habitual late filings and the lack of cooperation by the Defendants.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment