McLee v. Chrysler Corp., s. 94-8014
| Decision Date | 12 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 94-8014,94-3082,s. 94-8014 |
| Citation | 38 F.3d 67 |
| Parties | 66 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1121 William J. McLEE, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Movant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Michael H. Sussman, Goshen, NY, for plaintiff.
Louis Ginsberg, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City, for defendant-movant.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, KEARSE and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.
Pending before us is a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to a District Judge considering an employment discrimination case. The circumstances giving rise to the motion are as follows:
The defendant, Chrysler Corporation, moved for summary judgment in the District Court. Judge Goettel denied the motion, but, in doing so, made clear that he was under the impression that this Court had precluded grants of summary judgment in employment discrimination cases, at least where the employer's intent was at issue. Judge Goettel's memorandum decision concluded:
Consequently, we decline to even consider whether summary judgment is appropriate in this case. The motion for summary judgment is, therefore, denied.
Chrysler then moved for leave to appeal the ruling denying summary judgment, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), and the District Court certified its ruling.
By order filed September 12, 1994, we treated the motion for leave to appeal as a motion seeking leave to file a petition for mandamus, see In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litigation, 35 F.3d 637 (2d Cir. 1994) (), because
it appears that the District Judge may have failed to exercise the decision-making authority authorized by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the decisions of this Court, see Woroski v. Nashua Corp., 31 F.3d 105 (2d Cir.1994); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir.1994); Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir.1988).
Woroski and Dister had affirmed a grant of summary judgment for the employer in cases involving a claim of a discriminatory discharge. Although Gallo had reversed a grant of summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case because of the existence of disputed facts, this Court had cited Dister with approval. Gallo had also expressed caution about granting summary judgment in cases where intent is in issue, 22 F.3d at 1224, an unexceptionable principle of considerable lineage, see Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962). Thus, the District Court's impression that summary judgment is unavailable to defendants in discrimination cases is unsupportable.
Availing himself of the opportunity afforded by our September 12 order, the District Judge filed a response on September 28, 1994. The response endeavors to distinguish Woroski on its facts and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Senese v. Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 2:15-cv-07234 (ADS)(AYS)
...judgment is unavailable to defendants in discrimination cases is unsupportable." Weinstock , 224 F.3d at 41 (quoting McLee v. Chrysler Corp. , 38 F.3d 67, 68 (2d Cir. 1994) ); see also Abdu Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 239 F.3d 456, 466 (2d Cir. 2001) ("It is now beyond cavil that sum......
-
Menes v. Cuny University of New York
...that the "impression that summary judgment is unavailable to defendants in discrimination cases is unsupportable." McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 38 F.3d 67, 68 (2d Cir.1994); see Meiri, 759 F.2d at Where no evidence exists or only conclusory allegations of discrimination have been offered to sug......
-
Isaac v. City Of N.Y.
...in discrimination cases is unsupportable.’ ” Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir.2000) (citing McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 38 F.3d 67, 68 (2d Cir.1994)); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (“[T]rial cou......
-
Darroe v. Staples, Inc.
...Yet the "impression that summary judgment is unavailable to defendants in discrimination cases is unsupportable." McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 38 F.3d 67, 68 (2d Cir.1994). Plaintiff is not absolved of the responsibility of producing sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could retur......
-
Every day is a good day for a judge to lay down his professional life for justice.
...Pines, Second Circuit Panel Transfers Bias Case to Another Trial Judge, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 17, 1994, at 1 (describing McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 38 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1994), in which the trial judge who challenged the Second Circuit's summary judgment standard was chastised by the appellate (109.) ......