![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
April 28, 2000, Decided ; May 1, 2000, Docketed
Case Number: 98 C 5903
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Laurence Smith ("Smith") brought suit against Prudential Insurance Company of America ("Prudential"), alleging that Prudential discriminated against him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Prudential now moves this court for an order granting summary judgment in its favor. Prudential also seeks sanctions against Smith pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I. Summary Judgment Standard
] Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, [*2] if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Cox v. Acme Health Serv., Inc., 55 F.3d 1304, 1308 (7th Cir. 1995). A genuine issue of material fact exists for trial when, in viewing the record and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in a light most favorable to the non-movant, a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Eiland v. Trinity Hosp., 150 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1998).
] The movant bears the burden of establishing that there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 47 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 1995). If the movant meets this burden, the non-movant must set forth specific facts that demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Rule 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. Rule 56(c) mandates the [*3] entry of summary judgment against a party "who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and in which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. at 2552-53. A scintilla of evidence in support of the non-movant's position is not sufficient to oppose successfully a summary judgment motion; "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S. Ct. at 2511. Weighing evidence, determining credibility, and drawing reasonable inferences are jury functions, not those of a judge deciding a motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S. Ct. at 2515.
II. Factual Background
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6003 *; 2000 WL 549483
Laurence Smith, Plaintiff, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Defendant.
Disposition: [*1] Defendant's summary judgment motion [# 20-1] GRANTED. Defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions [# 26-1] GRANTED. Any and all other pending motions moot and terminated.
sanctions, hire, interview, summary judgment, candidate, resume, summary judgment motion, age discrimination, customer, training, improper purpose, prima facie case, non-movant, frivolous, proffered, motivate
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Supporting Materials, General Overview, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Opposing Materials, Evidence, Weight & Sufficiency, Judgments, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Scintilla Rule, Evidentiary Considerations, Motions for Summary Judgment, Types of Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Labor & Employment Law, Age Discrimination, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, Discriminatory Employment Practices, Discharges & Failures to Hire, Allocation, Burdens of Production, Sanctions, Baseless Filings, Parties, Pro Se Litigants, Pleading Standards, Attorneys