Dorothea O'driscoll -Counter- v. Hercules Inc., a Delaware Corporation McDonald -Counter-
Dorothea O’DRISCOLL, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. HERCULES INC., a Delaware Corporation; McDonald, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
Opinion
This matter is before the court pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s remand instruction. Plaintiff Dorothea O’Driseoll was employed by Defendant Hercules, Inc. Bacchus Works from January 7, 1980 until she was terminated on April 25, 1986. Upon termination, Plaintiff filed suit against Hercules and others, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 , Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 , as well as violations of state law including breach of employment contract and wrongful termination.
The district court entered summary judgment against Plaintiff based on the after-acquired evidence defense asserted by Defendant Hercules, relying on Summers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir.1988).
See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc. (O’Driscoll I), 745 F.Supp. 656, 660-61 (D.Utah 1990). On appeal, we affirmed.
See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc. (O’Driscoll II), 12 F.3d 176 , 180-81 (10th Cir.1994). Plaintiff petitioned for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
On January 23, 1995, the Supreme Court largely rejected the after-acquired evidence defense in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 879 , 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995). On February 21, 1995, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs petition for certiorari, vacated our opinion in O’Driscoll II, and remanded for further consideration in light of McKennon. See O’Driscoll v. Hercules, Inc., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1086 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1995).
On March 29, 1995 we issued an order vacating our judgment and recalling the *295 mandate in O’Dñscoll II.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiff in O’Driscoll I and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in McKennon .
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
REVERSED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(remanding fraud-in-application case for proceedings “consistent with the Supreme Court decision in McKennon ”)
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Becky Wallace, Annette Neal v. Dunn Construction Company, Inc.
- Roalson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Duart v. FMC Wyoming Corp.
- 69 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1036, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,844 Rohaida Duart, as Personal Representative for John Raymond Duart v. Fmc Wyoming Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
Most recent
- Roalson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- 69 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1036, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,844 Rohaida Duart, as Personal Representative for John Raymond Duart v. Fmc Wyoming Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
- Duart v. FMC Wyoming Corp.
- Becky Wallace, Annette Neal v. Dunn Construction Company, Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.