Peterson v. Northeast Utilities Service Company

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit Connecticut District Court Peterson v. Northeast Utilities Service Company

Peterson v. Northeast Utilities Service Company

Plaintiff:	Fay Peterson
Defendant:	Northeast Utilities Service Company
Case Number:	3:2010cv02032
Filed:	December 27, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	Hartford
Presiding Judge:	Charles S. Haight
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 15, 2014	Filing 67 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION. Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her suspension from employment was motivated in whole or in part by discrimination based on her gender, race, or Jamaican origin. She has further failed to prove that she would not have been terminated in December 2009 absent defendants desire to retaliate against her for filing a discrimination complaint with the CHRO. Accordingly, judgment shall enter for defendant on all counts. Please see attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/15/2014.(Steinfeld, Sarah)
June 12, 2014	Filing 46 ORDER. Defendant's 41 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. After reconsideration, the Court adheres to its ruling DENYING Defendant's 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to modify the case caption to reflect Defendant's name used herein. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/12/2014. (Norman, D.)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 15, 2014

Filing 67 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION. Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her suspension from employment was motivated in whole or in part by discrimination based on her gender, race, or Jamaican origin. She has further failed to prove that she would not have been terminated in December 2009 absent defendants desire to retaliate against her for filing a discrimination complaint with the CHRO. Accordingly, judgment shall enter for defendant on all counts. Please see attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/15/2014.(Steinfeld, Sarah)

June 12, 2014

Filing 46 ORDER. Defendant's 41 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. After reconsideration, the Court adheres to its ruling DENYING Defendant's 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to modify the case caption to reflect Defendant's name used herein. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/12/2014. (Norman, D.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Peterson v. Northeast Utilities Service Company
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Fay Peterson
Represented By:	John R. Williams
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Northeast Utilities Service Company
Represented By:	Janet Marie Helmke
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?